The UN, US and Iraq IV

Timber wrote:

Quote:

McG makes a point with his observation that The US pursues the interests of The US. All nations pursue their own interests. What bothers folks most about The US is that it is unique in that it can and does take action to serve and secure its own interests with indomitable vigor, and, more frequently than not, with relative success.......

.... The way I see it, "the other nations" are disinclined to do much about bullies, state or stateless, beyond bemoaning their existence, if even that. It is they who fail to cooperate in the matter of making the planet a safer place to live for all concerned.

I think that other nations have shown and continue to show interest in cooperating to contain bullies; there are other ways to contain bullies than by attacking their countries. If we take the steps necessary to fight stateless bullies, and do it evenhandedly rather than tip-toeing around the issue with countries that we don't want to anger (i.e., Saudi Arabia) then we will get lots of support in the war on terrorism.

Again from Timber:

Quote:

And while I am not so disingenuous as to ascribe a universal altruism to US foreign policy, neither am I sufficiently disingenuous as to infer an overweening venality in US policy. Simple answers may be convenient, but do not stand up well in respect to complicated issues......

It would be disingenuous indeed to ascribe such altruism to our country's foreign policy. However, is altruism totally at odds with self-interest? I do not think so. But that is a whole other discussion.

It seems self-evident that our strongest interest is the survival of this country and its values, as must be the case with with most nations in the world. But we, uniquely, can do whatever we want, being the most powerful nation in the world. And therein lies the danger, when we begin to equate might with right, and to tell the world that there is only one way, our way, and that all other ideas, suggestions, and arguments come from whining resentment or envy of this country.

If we accept the responsibility to be, or at least to appear to be, disinterestedly visionary as we take control of the planet, where will we find the wisdom to play god? The problem for me is that this government has among its key policy makers a number of committed PNAC'ers, a group that is highly ideological and has a well-stated agenda for shaping the world to its published goals.

PNAC principles are the imbodiment of American self-interest and imperialism, and we need more than that if we are to run the world. We need input and wisdom from other countries that were here long before we were and learnt a few things along the way. We need visions of moral strength to temper our physical strength, all with a good dose of pragmatism thrown in.

We need a discussion in this country about these issues, a dialogue that is neither polarized by politicians nor shrunk by fear of dissent, as Bill notes above.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Did you give your friend money to go support the dealer?

Did Saddam give Arafat money "to go support Osama"?

I dont think that was your original case ... but perhaps I misunderstood.

I thought your case was plainly - Saddam supported Palestinians who supported Osama, so there is a connection.

My "dealer" parallel equates with that argument, which I consider silly.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

nimh,

Last I heard was that the guy might be a Yemeni but that the existence of the passport hadn't been retracted.

Yeh sorry for the confusion. I thought I'd read that the message was retracted, but I didnt keep a bookmark on it and Googling it up now I cant find it back.

I probably mis-remembered the second bit of news - what you mention - that the man with the Syrian passport is now thought to be Yemeni.

0 Replies

Did anybody post this yet?

Quote:

Up to 15,000 people killed in invasion, claims thinktank

As many as 15,000 Iraqis were killed in the first days of America's invasion and occupation of Iraq, a study produced by an independent US thinktank said yesterday. Up to 4,300 of the dead were civilian noncombatants. [..]

The toll of Iraq's war dead covered by the report is limited to the early stages of the war, from March 19 when American tanks crossed the Kuwaiti border, to April 20, when US troops had consolidated their hold on Baghdad. [..]

The new report, which estimates Iraq's war dead at between 10,800 and 15,100, uses a far more rigorous definition of civilian than the other studies [from Iraq Body Count and the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict] to arrive at a figure of between 3,200 and 4,300 civilian noncombatants. [..]

As many as 5,726 Iraqis were killed in the US assault on Baghdad [..] As many as 3,531 - more than half - of the dead in the assault on the capital were noncombatant civilians, according to the report.

Overall in Iraq, the ratio of civilian to military deaths is almost twice as high as it was in the last Gulf war in 1991. The overall toll of the first war was far higher - with estimates of 20,000 Iraqi soldiers and 3,500 civilians killed.

However, Operation Iraqi Freedom, as the US military calls this year's war, has proved far deadlier to Iraqi civilians both in absolute numbers, and in the proportion of noncombatant to military deaths.

link

0 Replies

nimh, No, I don't think I've seen that report before now. I always had the impression, until now, that the Iraqi civilian death toll was around 3,000. 15,100 is a great deal more innocents killed on a war that many of us see as aggression against a country with one bad leader and his henchmen. I'm not so sure even Americans who seek security from terrorism can justify that kind of massacre against innocent lives. I'm just wondering how much longer supporters of GWBush is going to see this as the criminal act against humanity that it was? When can the world proclaim that it wasn't for the Iraqi people? When we've killed 30,000 - 50,000 innocent Iraqis? As more coalition forces are killed, more innocent Iraqi's will be killed. When is enough, enough?

0 Replies

The talk of Iraqi casualties brings to mind some things i was thinking about today. The recent "blitz" of attacks killed Iraqis far and away more than it did Americans. So one of the thoughts which occurs to me is that this could alienate the Iraqis to the "resistance." This does not, of course, imply that they'll love America as a result, but the attackers may have shot themselves in the foot with this one.

The other thought which has occurred to me is that the attackers did not maintain the pace of attack. Have they shot their bolt? The answer to that, of course, remains to be seen.

0 Replies

c.i., I too have seen various reports of Iraqi civilian deaths that vary widely. I wonder if the stats that nimh has linked are updated on an ongoing basis, or if those numbers froze at the "end" of the war.

Another oddity: I read recently that reports of US soldiers wounded in Iraq are not included in daily reports to the media unless a soldier was killed in that attack. In other words, you will read: One soldier was killed and three wounded in an attack in Baghdad today. But you will not hear that five soldiers were wounded in an incident today. Has anyone else read this?

Setanta, I think this is what our administration has in mind when they speak of stepping up the training of Iraqi security forces, in that these men would be less likely to be targeted by guerrilla forces. It seems to me that whoever is behind these attacks is not afraid of killing Iraqis, who are dying in greater numbers than US forces.

0 Replies

Yes, the administration qualifies the "misreporting" in Iraq as the reporters only want to report negative things and doesn't tell the truth. So, anything they can control, they do to prevent "untruths" being told <sigh>

Later when the numbers become available they will label it as "revisionist" history <double sigh>

0 Replies

What we don't really see are those soldiers who have lost a limb or two. I wonder how many of those we have at home or in rehab centers?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

What you seem to not realize is that US foriegn policy is very complex. #1 is the idea that the US should look out for it's own interests first. Some countries can be dealt with economically (like N. Korea) and some militarily (like Iraq).

The US has a VERY large stick that we walk the Earth with. Every nation in the world feels it's weight and must decide on there own which end of the stick they want to be on.

So, some nations have evil regimes running things, you can bet your bottom dollar that our government knows about it and is doing something about it. Even if it's not on Commondreams.com or in The Gaurdian every day.

So, while it may not be evident, rest assured that the US government, regardless of who is in charge is looking out for what's best for the US. Some people just don't like the means by which the US acheives it's goals.

I have read a lot of crap on the internet. But this is without doubt the biggest pile worthless right wing garbage that I have ever seen in my life.

0 Replies

Kara wrote:

cI wonder if the stats that nimh has linked are updated on an ongoing basis, or if those numbers froze at the "end" of the war.

Ehm ... <points back to quote above, where it says:> "The toll of Iraq's war dead covered by the report is limited to the early stages of the war, from March 19 when American tanks crossed the Kuwaiti border, to April 20, when US troops had consolidated their hold on Baghdad."

cicerone imposter wrote:

I always had the impression, until now, that the Iraqi civilian death toll was around 3,000. 15,100 is a great deal more innocents killed on a war

Ehm ... same goes for you, sorry, but please read the quote above again ... the report has "a figure of between 3,200 and 4,300 civilian noncombatants" - and a figure of "between 10,800 and 15,100" war dead in total.

So yes, you remember correct - some 3,000 (or 4,000) civilian deaths - and another 7-12 thousand combatant deaths ... until April 20.

(I'll leave the whole issue of the "guilt" or "innocence" of conscripted foot soldiers in a dictatorship aside for the moment ...)

0 Replies

"The Killers Don't Want Freedom for Iraq." GWB
What killers is w referring to?

I believe he is referring to himself and his gang of killers.

0 Replies

Hey, Wilso, We have a few extremits in the US too - I'm afraid. Using the big stick in the wrong way is contrary to the greatest ideals of a fair and compasionate nation. Some of us needs to learn a little humble pie before we chew off more than we can eat in comfort and peace. Some people still think might is right. Too many comics.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The talk of Iraqi casualties brings to mind some things i was thinking about today. The recent "blitz" of attacks killed Iraqis far and away more than it did Americans. So one of the thoughts which occurs to me is that this could alienate the Iraqis to the "resistance." This does not, of course, imply that they'll love America as a result, but the attackers may have shot themselves in the foot with this one.

You would think so ... or hope so, at least. But parallel situations have shown mixed evidence, I think ...

I mean, the same goes for terrorist groups - or guerrilla groups for that matter - across the world. Their attacks often kill more of their 'own' group than of the targeted group - or at the very least directly provoke retaliations that do. Yet still there's been enough guerrilla groups that gained the loyalty of a large part of the population ...

All depends on timing, I guess.

0 Replies

Quote:

Ehm ... <points back to quote above, where it says:> "The toll of Iraq's war dead covered by the report is limited to the early stages of the war, from March 19 when American tanks crossed the Kuwaiti border, to April 20, when US troops had consolidated their hold on Baghdad."

I read it too quickly. Embarrassed

Or maybe I just did not want to accept such a line-in-the-sand statistic.

0 Replies

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of Incidents in Iraq Up, Officials Say
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24, 2003 - With new attacks in Iraq today, four soldiers have been killed in enemy attacks and two others have died there of other causes since Oct. 22, U.S. Central Command officials said. Four other soldiers were wounded.

This brings the number of U.S. service members killed in Iraq since March 19 to 219. A total of 1,620 have been wounded.

Coalition officials in Baghdad said the number of incidents in the country is averaging 25 to 26 per day, with 35 as the highest single-day total. Incidents are defined as attacks, attempted attacks or thwarted attacks against coalition forces. This is up from the summer months, officials said.

The northern and southern parts of the country remain fairly calm, officials said. About 80 percent of the attacks are happening in the so-called "Baathist Triangle" of Tikrit, Baghdad and Ar Ramadi.

Officials said part of the reason incidents were up is because of increased coalition pressure on Baathist holdouts, foreign terrorists and criminal elements in the country.

In the most serious incident, two 4th Infantry Division soldiers were killed and four were wounded in a mortar attack in Samarra today. Officials in Baghdad said the incident is under investigation, but that the tactics are fairly common.

"They fire long-range weapons, because they cannot hope to win a firefight," said a Combined Joint Task Force 7 official. The official said that more than half of the attacks against coalition and Iraqi forces are done with mortars, improvised explosive devices, mines, rocket-propelled grenades or missiles.

In Mosul, a soldier from the 101st Airborne Division was killed in a firefight in the western part of the city today.

On Oct. 23, a 4th Infantry Division soldier was killed and two were wounded when an improvised explosive device detonated under their vehicle south of Baqubah. Two 1st Armored Division soldiers died in two separate noncombat incidents Oct. 22.

All names are being withheld, pending notification of next of kin.

Source

0 Replies

In war terms those are ridiculously low numbers. Tragic of course, but you have to view it in the proper perspective.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

In war terms those are ridiculously low numbers. Tragic of course, but you have to view it in the proper perspective.

Thx .....I feel much better about blood for oil now. Granted we deposed a bloody dictator (that we installed and supported) but somehow ... never mind .... perspective

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

In war terms those are ridiculously low numbers. Tragic of course, but you have to view it in the proper perspective.

I agree with you on the # of American deaths - but then, it seems all recent wars the US were involved in had ridiculously low numbers of American casualties. Afghanistan, Yugoslavia ...

Instead, it's the others who are dying. Do you consider 10 to 15 thousand Iraqi (military & civilian) deaths, within one month, also a "ridiculously low number"?

0 Replies

It's not what I consider, it's compared to other wars.

0 Replies

The UN, US and Iraq IV

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know