Iraq: US death toll in war hits 4,000

[SpeedoGuy]

This is sad, a war launched on fraudulent intelligence.

I suspect a better way to phrase it would be cherry picking and selective interpretation of existing intel rather than outright fraud. Everyone involved has much more convenient deniability that way.

 

[frizzle]

By support it's pretty obvious, just give the boys and girls a cheer when they come home, hopefully not in a coffin and not criticise them for doing their job.

And yes, getting rid of Saddam, a tryant dictator is a good reason for invasion. I just wish the same could be said for Kim Jong or Mumgabe.

 

[Drifterwood]

And yes, getting rid of Saddam, a tryant dictator is a good reason for invasion. I just wish the same could be said for Kim Jong or Mumgabe.

Your Mum, Frizzle.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

And yes, getting rid of Saddam, a tryant dictator is a good reason for invasion. I just wish the same could be said for Kim Jong or Mumgabe.

And the same can be said of the leaders of the USA, Turkey, Pakistan (until recently), Indonesia and Israel.

The world has rules. They were written in gallons of blood from centuries of warfare waged for all sorts of reasons. "Just war" or "Pre-emptive war" are not among those reasons.

 

[frizzle]

Your Mum, Frizzle.

Your mum, your dad, the one you never had. Yes, very fun.

And the same can be said of the leaders of the USA, Turkey, Pakistan (until recently), Indonesia and Israel.

The world has rules. They were written in gallons of blood from centuries of warfare waged for all sorts of reasons. "Just war" or "Pre-emptive war" are not among those reasons.

Typical left-wing response. I don't see how you can claim that the USA has a tryant dictator with the political system that is set up.

 

[Drifterwood]

Your dad, the one you never had.

You had your Dad?

BadDad.

 

[frizzle]

We called it Spooning Sunday.

 

[DC_DEEP]

And I find it compelling that no where in your rhetoric... much less probably ever in your life, do you condemn the terrorists doing these acts against their own ilk. It's the US/coalition's fault that terrorists are killing Iraqi citizens???

Perhaps not in his post, but many of us do, in various ways, in various media (but you are ignoring me for making untenable posts like this one.) Alright. Terrorists, no matter where they strike, are filthy cowards. Now, does that make you feel better? As mentioned below,

Nobody has to come out and condemn terrorism... it's like coming out against rape or murder. Condemnation is just an exercise in rhetoric anyway.

You would think that's a no-brainer, wouldn't you, tripod? But I suppose it's apparent that we have some no-brainers posting things like that. The implication that if you haven't specifically gone on record as despising a despicable person, that makes you his sympathizer, is beyond ridiculous. Yes, terrorists are cowardly, amoral, butchering monsters. Water is wet, and fire is hot. Ok, I've stated the obvious. Now I'm more patriotic.

By support it's pretty obvious, just give the boys and girls a cheer when they come home, hopefully not in a coffin and not criticise them for doing their job.

Thanks, frizzle. Actually, that's what I've been doing, but I still get accused of "not supporting our troops," because I don't support the rationale behind their deployment. I honestly don't think I'm being unpatriotic, or unsupportive of the troops, if I say "I'm glad you are back from Iraq; you're a hero. I'm sorry you had to go over there to fight."

And yes, getting rid of Saddam, a tryant dictator is a good reason for invasion. I just wish the same could be said for Kim Jong or Mumgabe.

I have to disagree here. Saddam was a tyrant, and a butcher, but that is not good reason for invading Iraq (nor was it the reason given for the invasion.) I don't think it's my country's job to be the world police, or to take out any foreign leader simply because we designate him a tyrant. I know many will disagree, but I honestly think Kim Jong Il is much more of a threat to my country's security than was Saddam Hussein, but we invaded Iraq, not North Korea.

Every year, our cheesy little weekly publication, Parade Magazine, prints a "top 10 worst dictators" article, and I have to say, I agree with many of their assessments. I don't think it's the role or the concern or the authority of the United States of America to go around exterminating all the murderous tyrants around the world.

 

[Lex]

DC, Tripod, Dong20 and rubi have really summed up a lot of my thoughts.

Especially on those who would condemn any who do not blindly agree with the government as somehow unpatriotic. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves at the thought of not challenging government when the citizenry feels it is awry.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Actually, that's what I've been doing, but I still get accused of "not supporting our troops," because I don't support the rationale behind their deployment.

Bingo. Its not even a subtle difference but many still can't or won't recognize it.

Every year, our cheesy little weekly publication, Parade Magazine, prints a "top 10 worst dictators" article, and I have to say, I agree with many of their assessments. I don't think it's the role or the concern or the authority of the United States of America to go around exterminating all the murderous tyrants around the world.

Agreed. Parade is cheesy and mostly fluff so its surprising that the yearly "top 10 worst dictators" article is usually spot on. Its about the closest thing to real world reporting Parade publishes.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I suspect a better way to phrase it would be cherry picking and selective interpretation of existing intel rather than outright fraud. Everyone involved has much more convenient deniability that way.

I disagree...

It was fraudulent...it was faked...
There was more than adequate intel showing NO WMDs in Iraq, that was suppressed or destroyed.

And when someone in government, someone who voted for Bush, came back from Africa and REPORTED that the yellowcake story was fabricated....
naively assuming that he had been sent to ascertain the truth of the matter...

...That's when the Administration was willing to commit treason to send the message that you don't tell the truth about the Iraq war.

The exposure of Valerie Plame and the subsequent destruction of every covert organization she ever had dealings with... the very CIA operation meant to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear weapons.... was on a par with Benedict Arnold's treason at West Point.

Bush, Cheney and Rove should all 3 be shot by a firing squad of soldiers who have been maimed for their lies.

 

[dong20]

... It was fraudulent...it was faked...
There was more than adequate intel showing NO WMDs in Iraq, that was suppressed or destroyed.

If was suppressed or destroyed how do you know what it said?

As I recall from Blix's reports (as one example); there was little credible evidence of the presence of WMD. What there wasn't was proof of their absence. I imagine that 'absence of evidence' as 'evidence of absence' didn't sit well with the motivation that Bush et al had in mind. When combined with an undoubted desire to go 'sort out' Saddam, it's not difficult to understand how events transpired the way they did.

Nevertheless, that's more a convenient, selective interpretation and aggrandisement than outright fraud or fakery But I'll agree it's a fine line. I'm not discounting that some fraud occurred. Probably perpetrated by individuals seeking to curry favour with one or more elements in the Governments involved.

Personally I didn't think there were WMD in Iraq at the time, but I could only form that view based on what I read, the application of some basic common sense and in part, instinct; the same as anyone else on the 'outside', I'd imagine. As it happens, that view has since borne out by events and the recriminations of some of those involved. I could have been wrong.

Anyway, this has been done to death. Unless you or I had or have sight of the same information that those making the decisions then or now, it's essentially speculation, with the added benefit of hindsight.

 

[frizzle]

Thanks, frizzle. Actually, that's what I've been doing, but I still get accused of "not supporting our troops," because I don't support the rationale behind their deployment. I honestly don't think I'm being unpatriotic, or unsupportive of the troops, if I say "I'm glad you are back from Iraq; you're a hero. I'm sorry you had to go over there to fight."

Whoever criticises you is not a true patriot. You don't have to agree with the aims or why went out there, just the fact that men and women are risking their lives and you want them back home, safe and sound.

I have to disagree here. Saddam was a tyrant, and a butcher, but that is not good reason for invading Iraq (nor was it the reason given for the invasion.) I don't think it's my country's job to be the world police, or to take out any foreign leader simply because we designate him a tyrant. I know many will disagree, but I honestly think Kim Jong Il is much more of a threat to my country's security than was Saddam Hussein, but we invaded Iraq, not North Korea.

Every year, our cheesy little weekly publication, Parade Magazine, prints a "top 10 worst dictators" article, and I have to say, I agree with many of their assessments. I don't think it's the role or the concern or the authority of the United States of America to go around exterminating all the murderous tyrants around the world.

True, it isn't America's job to police the world, but with a country like America, a certain responsiblity is held because of it's power and resources, it's usually looked up to in times of need. Or even as a role model. Just like a footballer doesn't ask to become a role model, he just does.

But I find it harsh that people will criticise for Iraq's invasion yet want a US-led invasion of Tibet!

 

[Elmer Gantry]

The exposure of Valerie Plame and the subsequent destruction of every covert organization she ever had dealings with... the very CIA operation meant to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear weapons.... was on a par with Benedict Arnold's treason at West Point.

I'd nearly forgotten about that one. If there was ever a smoking gun to prove how far they went to cover up the fabrications and for how little regard they have for real intelligence gathering then this is it.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

But I find it harsh that people will criticise for Iraq's invasion yet want a US-led invasion of Tibet!

Certainly not me. Read my posts.

INVADING ANYONE IS ILLEGAL AND A MAJOR WAR CRIME NO MATTER WHO THE HELL YOU THINK YOU ARE.

I also believe that the current generation of world leaders lack of experience in a real shooting war leads them to a certain "Playstation" view of what war really is. "The failure of the human spirit" to coin a phrase by Robert Fisk is the most apt description.

 

[frizzle]

Was it wrong for the Soviet Union, US and British to invade Nazi Germany?

 

[Stretch]

Was it wrong for the Soviet Union, US and British to invade Nazi Germany?

Hate to break it to you Frizzle...but Nazi Germany was not invaded, the Nazi's actually were the ones to invade Poland on 9/1/39. Two days later France and the United Kingdom both declared war on Germany.

 

[frizzle]

You obviously don't know your history. Go back and read about it.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

Was it wrong for the Soviet Union, US and British to invade Nazi Germany?

They didn't start it. Nazi Germany was neutralised by a pretty much unanimous decision.

Insipid point.

 

[efex]

I leave in 90 days for Iraq.