Saddam Captured?

Hey holmes.Just out of curiousity, may I examine the source of your figure of six thousand Iraqi casualties?I agree that former US policy decisions are part of the current problem. If previous Republican administrations had not supported Saddam, most of those violations would not have happened.M8: It is not the responsibility of the US to go around "slaying dragons" (John Adams). If we made it our business to hunt down people who violate human rights, we might as well reinstate the draft and prepare for total mobilization (as well as nuclear war with China).The United States was, after all, founded on the premise of people being left alone. Left alone by both the government and by foreign governments. Both require that we must mind our own business except for when our national interests are duly threatened. (By WMD or terrorism, etc. This is why many traditional conservatives were opposed to the war)True, it seems odd that human rights violations were adequate to justify the Clinton/UN war in Kosovo but not the Iraq war and I feel that there is a double standard at work.How about we just try to stop *supporting* the abusers of human rights and call it day?I also find it odd and inconsistent that the Left which normally pushes for human rights protested the removal of a flagrant human rights abuser, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Right invaded because Saddam was a bad guy, either.Further I think Bush botched the war politically when he focused on WMD's rather than investigating possible connections between Saddam and 9/11. On the other hand, Republicans are not the only group to have believed that Saddam had WMD (or perhaps lied about it). Remember Clinton's Monica Missiles? ( IIS 10.0 Detailed Error - 404.0 - Not Found )[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-15-2003]

quote:

---

Did either of you notice last week that Bush told the Taiwanese that they must not try and become independent of the military dictatorship holding them hostage.

---

I did notice that, and was disappointed.

And of course, the managers of the Iraq Body Count have no political agenda...

quote:

---

This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.

---

And why is health care and sanitation inadequate? How much is due to the war and how much because it never was up to par? Also note that the website makes no distinction from Iraqis killed by Americans and Iraqis killed by insurgents and Iraqis who were simply...killed. Essentially this would be tallying up every murder that happened in Iraq and blaming it on America.And some are ambiguous as being civilian. Note that the 14 year old son of Qusay is included. Oh sure, he was a civilian...a civilian with an AK-47 firing at American troops, at least two of which were wounded if my memory doesn't fail me. Some other of the Iraqi casualties, such as the incident on July 8th are labeled as "attackers". Also included in the list of the "innocent" Iraqi dead are "grenade throwers" (2 June), "Baath Party members" 8, 13 June), "Resistance fighters" (8, 13 June), "fleeing attackers" (12 June), "celebrants firing into the air and/or at US outposts" (28 April), "bank robbers" (11 April), "mobile radar equipment", (6 January), and a "mobile SAM system" (10 February).I thought we were talking about civilian dead...And even if the website owners don't have an agenda, check the sources. I'm sure Al-Jazeera and AlterNet.org don't have political motives, nor are they playing for an audience.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-15-2003][This message has been edited by gene90, 12-15-2003]

True, there are no such instances in the list, and I have to grant that the authors have made a commendable effort at collecting and cross-referencing the incidents.But...How shall I 'weed those out'? The website has shown no concern over differentiating legitimate targets from accidents. And many of the deaths are without listed circumstances.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-15-2003]

As for making a bad situation worse, I am probably obligated to admit the tremendous differences in difficulty and expense (of US lives and treasure) between Kosovo and Iraq. Interestingly, however, the site Dan and I are discussing claims that the number of civilian deaths per military casualty was higher in Kosovo. Of course, Kosovo was an order of magnitude "cleaner", I suppose, if a war could ever be called "clean".About IBC :: Iraq Body CountOTOH, is it ok to conditionally support a cause (say, human rights) as long as the cost is not too great? I defer to others to consider an answer.Is it morally ok to profit from war? I don't go as far as saying it is wrong to make a living in the defense sector. However, if Moose's claims are accurate then I concur it is immoral for the leadership involved in orchestrating a war to make financial gains from that war.[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-15-2003]