THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Regarding the above article: If we didn't invade, they wouldn't be fighting among themselves.

Thanks for the tip of what words to put in google, McGentrix.

Came up with this:

Quote:

The population of Iraq (2005 estimate) is 26,074,906. The estimated overall population density is 60 persons per sq km (156 per sq mi). The density varies markedly, with the largest population concentrations close to the Tigris or Euphrates rivers.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567303_4/Iraq.html

For a map to see where the Euphrates and the Tigris river is:
http://www.alsagerschool.co.uk/subjects/sub_content/geography/gpop/htmlenh/country/iq.htm

0 Replies

revel

This is a very detailed 'normal' map.

On this site you find a map outlining the different ethnic groups (and further links).

And here is a good one with the density of population.

0 Replies

InfraBlue wrote:

That the argument I've posted makes absolutely no sense to you comes as absolutely no surprise, ican. As for your complaint about "semantic manipulations" ...

I alleged:

If our goal is getting these fanatics -- these mass murderers of civilians; these mass murdering malignancies -- to completely abandon their repeatedly stated goals, then the only thing that will ultimately get these fanatics to completely abandon their repeatedly stated goals, is to exterminate them.

After cleansing your responses of semantic manipulations that defy reality, they become equivalent to:

Those who exterminate these fanatics -- these mass murderers of civilians; these mass murdering malignancies -- to get these fanatics to completely abandon their repeatedly stated goals, are equivalent to fanatics -- these mass murderers of civilians; these mass murdering malignancies.

Let A = These fanatics -- these mass murderers of civilians; these mass murdering malignancies.

Let B = Those who exterminate these fanatics -- these mass murderers of civilians; these mass murdering malignancies.

Let C = Civilians who will be mass murdered, and B make C = 0.

Let D = Civilians who will be unintentionally killed by B .

Then your allegation is equivalent to:

B = A.

It is precisely that allegation which makes no sense to me whatsoever.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Regarding the above article: If we didn't invade, they wouldn't be fighting among themselves.
...

Yes, they would be fighting among themselves.

Based on the performance of the Saddam Hussein regime 1979 to 2003,
if Iraq had not been invaded, during the period 1/1/2003 to 2/15/2006, more than 74,000 Iraqi civilians would have been murdered.

During that same period, 1/1/2003 to 2/15/2006, 32,119 Iraqi civilians were killed --less than half as many.

0 Replies

ican wrote:

After cleansing your responses of semantic manipulations that defy reality, they become equivalent to:

Those who exterminate these fanatics -- these mass murderers of civilians; these mass murdering malignancies -- to get these fanatics to completely abandon their repeatedly stated goals, are equivalent to fanatics -- these mass murderers of civilians; these mass murdering malignancies.

Let A = These fanatics -- these mass murderers of civilians; these mass murdering malignancies.

Let B = Those who exterminate these fanatics -- these mass murderers of civilians; these mass murdering malignancies.

Let C = Civilians who will be mass murdered, and B make C = 0.

Let D = Civilians who will be unintentionally killed by B .

Then your allegation is equivalent to:

B = A.

You are wrong!

My responses are far simpler, and are more along the lines of:

Those who exterminate these fanatics -- these mass murderers of civilians; these mass murdering malignancies -- to get these fanatics to completely abandon their repeatedly stated goals through fanatical mass murdering malignancy -- these mass murderers of civilians through their invasive, occupational mass murdering war are equivalent to the fanatics -- these mass murdering malignancies -- who they are trying to exterminate to get these fanatics to completely abandon their repeatedly stated goals.

A = malignancies who fanatically mass murder to achieve their goals.

Malignancies who fanatically mass murder to achieve their goals -- those that are repeatedly stated = A.

Malignancies who fanatically mass murder to achieve their goals -- the extermination of those malignancies who fanatically mass murder to achieve their repeatedly stated goals to get them to abandon their repeatedly stated goals = A.

A = A

Quote:

It is precisely that allegation which makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Firstly, you have mischaracterized my allegation. But then again, I am confident that even after having explained it to you, you will still be at a loss.

Secondly, to say that mass murdering of civilians in a deliberately waged invasive, occupational war is unintentional is a rationalization. To say that mass murdering of civilians in a deliberately waged invasive, occupational war isn't fanatical or malignant is denial.

A ≠ A

Not true!

I allege:

Ultimately, if one does not intend to mass murder civilians in a war, one should not wage that war.

0 Replies

OK, I think I finally understand what you allege and it actually makes sense to me though I don't think it practical.

I think you think that anyone or group that mass murders to achieve their goals, regardless of what their goals are, are all members of the same logical group:

They are all malignancies who fanatically mass murder to achieve their goals.

Even those whose goal is strictly the mass murder of those who mass murder others, are malignancies who fanatically mass murder to achieve their goals.

I infer that you find all such malignancies to be detestable and/or deplorable and/or immoral and/or evil. Consequently, I infer you believe that to avoid being a malignancy, no government should ever allow itself to mass murder any group regardless of that government's goals.

You further allege that deliberately waging invasive, occupational war cannot be logically claimed to be an act that unintentionally mass murders civilians. Consequently, those who ingage in such are malignancies.

Finally you allege:

Quote:

Ultimately, if one does not intend to mass murder civilians in a war, one should not wage that war.

All that together logically implies to me: Do not defend yourself or others in a manner that will possibly cause you to mass murder anyone or group.

In earlier posts, I described various alternatives to invading Iraq that some of my acquaintances advocated. I've added two more here. I'll list them all here with mine listed last and what I now infer is yours listed first:
1. Resist mass murderers of civilians, only when it can be done without mass murdering such murderers;
2. Invade terrorist sanctuaries from time to time and mass murder some terrorists to limit the mass murdering they do;
3. Leave the curtailing of terrorists to each country's domestic police and courts;
4. Turn over all anti-terrorist activity to an international police force such as Interpol;
5. Invade and remove the governments of countries that allow sanctuary to terrorists;
6. Invade countries that allow sanctuary to terrorists, mass murder their resident terrorists, and replace their governments with non-tyrannical democracies.

0 Replies

Does anyone else get a splitting headache two sentences into ican711nm's posts? Or is it just me?

(even the username is headache inducing!)

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

revel wrote:
Regarding the above article: If we didn't invade, they wouldn't be fighting among themselves.
...

Yes, they would be fighting among themselves.

You don't know that.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
revel wrote:
Regarding the above article: If we didn't invade, they wouldn't be fighting among themselves.
...

Yes, they would be fighting among themselves.

You don't know that.

[size=8]More headache on the way![/size]

You don't know they would not be fighting among themselves.

Why do you think that despite a 24 year history of fighting among themselves, they would suddenly stop in 2003, if we had not invaded Iraq? I wouldn't bet on them suddenly stopping.

ican7nm wrote:

Yes, they would be fighting among themselves.

Based on the performance of the Saddam Hussein regime 1979 to 2003,
if Iraq had not been invaded, during the period 1/1/2003 to 2/15/2006, more than 74,000 Iraqi civilians would have been murdered.

During that same period, 1/1/2003 to 2/15/2006, 32,119 Iraqi civilians were killed --less than half as many.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why do you think that despite a 24 year history of fighting among themselves, they would suddenly stop in 2003, if we had not invaded Iraq? I wouldn't bet on them suddenly stopping.

Because they were not fighting among themselves under Saddam Hussien. They were too busy trying to stay alive and out of those torture chambers. The same as they are now only now they are fighting among themselves.

Quote:

Sectarian Violence Resurges in Iraq

By Nelson Hernandez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 25, 2006; 6:39 AM

BAGHDAD, Feb. 25 -- Sectarian violence that has erupted with renewed force since the bombing of a Shiite shrine claimed the lives of at least 17 Iraqis on Saturday, despite an extraordinary daytime curfew that emptied the streets of Baghdad and three neighboring provinces for a second day.

Shiite and Sunni Arab political leaders have made public pleas for calm, but each side accused the other of mounting revenge attacks since the bombing of the golden-domed Askariya shrine in Samarra four days ago.

At least 150 people have been killed in the fighting. In an attempt to stem the violence, the government has imposed an unusual daytime curfew for two days and closed the airport and all roads in and out of Baghdad. Yet Iraqis are waiting on tenterhooks to see whether the scattered attacks will explode into an open civil war.

Sunni leaders say Shiite militias affiliated with political parties have been allowed to rampage through the streets unchecked by the army and police. The Sunnis, in turn, have hastily organized groups of local men to defend their neighborhoods from attack.

On Saturday there were signs the Sunnis were conducting their own offensive. In the morning, gunmen killed 12 members of a Shiite family living near the predominantly Sunni Arab town of Baqubah, north of Baghdad. Details of the attack on the house of Kadhim Saleh were scanty, a spokesman for the Joint Coordination Center in Diyala province said in an interview.

In Karbala, a Shiite holy city south of Baghdad, a car bomb explosion killed at least four people, the provincial governor said on al-Iraqiya television. The governor said that a suspect, who witnesses said detonated the bomb by remote control, was caught as he tried to flee the scene.

And in Baghdad, gunmen opened fire on the funeral procession for an Al Arabiya television reporter killed while covering the bombing in Samarra. One security guard was killed in the firefight, the network said.

source

0 Replies

revel wrote:

...

Quote:
Why do you think that despite a 24 year history of fighting among themselves, they would suddenly stop in 2003, if we had not invaded Iraq? I wouldn't bet on them suddenly stopping.

Because they were not fighting among themselves under Saddam Hussien. They were too busy trying to stay alive and out of those torture chambers. The same as they are now only now they are fighting among themselves.
...

Wrong! They were fighting among themselves throughout the 24 years of Saddam Hussein's regime 1979 to 2003. The themseves in this case, were the Baathist Sunnis against all the rest of the Iraqis. All the rest included the Kurds and the Shia who fought back but repeatedly lost against the Baathist Sunnis.

Now it's the Saddamists (former Baathist Sunnis) & al-Qaeda et al against all the rest. The same Iraqis are fighting among themselves now as did during Saddam's regime. However, the results are different. Today, the Saddamists & al-Qaeda are murdering on average far fewer per day than did Saddam's regime. Granted some of the Shia and Kurds are now murdering too. But on-average the total murdered daily is far less than when Saddam's gang ruled.

Also, the elected Shia who number roughly 45% of elected Iraqis, the elected Kurds who number roughly 30% of elected Iraqis, and the elected Sunnis who number roughly 25% of elected Iraqis, have been working to form a government in which they all share power in proportion to their respective numbers.

0 Replies

Ican, whatever lets you sleep at night.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Ican, whatever lets you sleep at night.

The knowledge that I am doing what I think is right rather than doing only what others tell me, or have told me, they think is right.

It works for me. If you have trouble sleeping at night, try it. It might work for you too.

0 Replies

Saddam Had WMD

0 Replies

WHAT SAY YOU ALL NOW?

While Saddam's regime did not possess ready-to-use WMD at the time the USA invaded Iraq, it possessed the capability to assemble WMD from large stockpiles of WMD parts and ingredients shipped and stored outside of Iraq for future use.

While it appears Saddam's regime was not an imminent threat to the USA when it was removed, once the UN lifted its sanctions on Iraq, Saddam's regime would have rapidly become a serious future threat to the world in general and the USA in particular.

Of course, the only way one can be sure that a threat is an imminent threat is when it has commenced being executed. Only circa 9 am on 9/11/2001, was it clear to everyone that al-Qaeda constituted an imminent threat to the USA. Al-Qaeda was not considered an imminent threat to the USA when it re-established itself in Afghanistan in 1996. Al-Qaeda wasn't even considered an imminent threat to the USA after it attacked our Destroyer Cole in December 2000, in Aden, in the middle east.

I've encountered six alternatives advocated by my acquaintenances and posters in this forum for dealing with the future threat of the Terrorist Malignancy (TM); TM consists of all those who mass murder civilians, abet the mass murderers of civilians, or advocate the mass murder of civilians.

Here are those six alternatives:
1. Resist TM, only when it can be done without mass murdering TM;
2. Leave the mass murdering of TM to each country's domestic police and courts;
3. Leave the mass murdering of TM to an international police force such as Interpol;
4. Invade TM sanctuaries from time to time and mass murder some of them to limit the mass murdering they do;
5. Invade and remove the governments of countries that allow sanctuary to TM;
6. Invade countries that allow sanctuary to TM, mass murder their resident TM, and replace their governments with non-tyrannical democracies.

What alternative do you favor?

0 Replies

does anyone read this topic or just post in it?

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

does anyone read this topic or just post in it?

I do both. How about you?

0 Replies

I favor dropping all the bullsh*t, Ican! Your first article rests upon a strawman:

Quote:

War foes have long asserted that Saddam halted his WMD programs in the wake of his defeat in the first Gulf War in 1991.

There has been no proof that this is not true; the tapes don't provide this proof. They show that Saddam had the desire to continue his programs, but that is completely seperate from the capability of doing so.

The first piece also attempts to re-write history. It says,

Quote:

They show conclusively that Bush didn't lie when he cited Saddam's WMD plans as one of the big reasons for taking the dictator out.

Bush's lie wasn't that Saddam wanted WMD. We all know, and knew at the time, that he was a bad guy who wanted WMD. Bush lied when he said Saddam had WMD, had the means of delivering them and was going to do so if we didn't attack immediately.

It's crazy to watch people play word games and attempt to re-write history! As if we don't remember what happened at the time. I know I do.

Of course, there were no WMD when we invaded. Because Saddam apparently didn't want them in Iraq for some reason, instead of using them against our forces, which would have made far more sense. Why weren't they there?

Quote:

"The short answer to the question of where the WMD Saddam bought from the Russians went was that they went to Syria and Lebanon," said John Shaw, former deputy undersecretary of defense, in comments made at an intelligence summit Feb. 17-20 in Arlington, Va.

"They were moved by Russian Spetsnaz (special ops) units out of uniform that were specifically sent to Iraq to move the weaponry and eradicate any evidence of its existence," he said.

Do me a favor, don't ever make fun of a conspiracy theorist again if you believe this sh*t, okay?

Instead of spending your time trying to re-write history, Ican, why don't you read these two pieces, the first by Bill Moyers and the second by Buckley:

http://www.commondreams.org/cgi-bin/print.cgi?file=/views06/0224-20.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Do they really expect people to buy this story?

0 Replies

Cyc,
Check again. It wasn't I who posted that article. It was McGentrix who deserves the credit.

This is what I posted about McGentrix's post:

ican711nm wrote:

While Saddam's regime did not possess ready-to-use WMD at the time the USA invaded Iraq, it possessed the capability to assemble WMD from large stockpiles of WMD parts and ingredients shipped and stored outside of Iraq for future use.

While it appears Saddam's regime was not an imminent threat to the USA when it was removed, once the UN lifted its sanctions on Iraq, Saddam's regime would have rapidly become a serious future threat to the world in general and the USA in particular.

What substantive evidence do you have that the tapes referred to in McGentrix's post are frauds?

Opinions are not substantive evidence!

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, TENTH THREAD.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know