Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
XingWi

Half million Iraqis died in war, occupation

63 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beany

Bush The Stupider is criminally insane. You could tell he was taking anti-psychotics, if you knew what to look for.

In answer to many posts, I tell my Congressmen/women that if we are to go to war, it should be with the Saudis, if any country, a country who instigated and funded 9-11.

OK, that made me laugh! This thread needed a little humor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

So if China invaded the U.S. based on falsified information, it would be OK if they spent billions on rebuilding damage they caused based on this lie?Or if they killed half a million innocent people, it would be OK if they were trying to reduce this number?Quite frankly, the U.S. government has committed crimes by illegally invading Iraq and have destabilized Iraq so much so that radical muslims are causing havoc daily.

It strikes me that while we can't turn the clock back and makes different decisions about Iraq & Middle East, we can be more vigilant, because some of those people involved in the decision to invade are still active and influential. We invaded and occupied a country without provocation, destablized the region, and made a lot of enemies. And no one has a clue as to how to put it back together, though I'm not sure that is the political or economic aim. I find that thought troubling.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

Clearly (in hindsight) it was a mistake. My problem with those who spew hatred toward the motivations of my government is that they have as their greatest example of "propriety", the support of nothing but the status quo ante. IOW it's okay if a dictator ruthlessly enslaves a population for decades because if we attempt to change that calculus and fail then we are seen as MUCH worse than the original evil. It's ridiculous on it's face to a person of traditional morals - and NO I'm not calling everyone who disagreed with the war immoral. I'm saying that some things are worth fighting for even when you lose. It gets old when the motives of western civilization are found to be more worthy of your condemnation than the evil of a Saddam or an Assad. I pray I'm never at the mercy of your grace.

Let's get this one out of the way. Saddam used chemical weapons, killed hundreds of thousands of his enemies in an unconventional way. He was a brutal and evil dictator who tortured his opposition.

OK, now let's talk about traditional morals and crossing the red line. Basically, under international law and civilised morality he should have been declared a criminal and hunted down for his crimes as soon as he committed these atrocities. YES?

  • In 1979 Iraq was declared a State that sponsored terrorism.
  • In 1980 the war between Iran and Iraq broke out and lasted until 1988.
  • It's well reknown the US supported Iraq with intelligence and weapons against Iran.
  • In 1982 Basra was under siege and the Iranian troops gaining the upper hand. Now have a look on a map where Basra sits. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are staunch US allies and provide a lot of oil (even then).
  • Saddam stopped the siege in it's tracks by pounding Iranian troops with Chemical weapons.
  • US intelligence and the UN were aware of this and did nothing (no sanctions, no red line, no threat of an invasion, NOTHING). In 1982 Iraq was removed as a terrorist sponsoring State.
  • in 1987 Saddam gassed the Kurds. US intelligence and the UN were aware of this and did nothing (no sanctions, no red line, no threat of an invasion, NOTHING).
  • In 1990 the Gulf War and invasion of Kuwait with subsequent sanctions against Iraq (Resolution 661).
  • In 2003 the invasion of Iraq due to WMD and Saddam's brutality against Iraqi people.

Since you talk from the height of your morality, explain the inconsistencies. Why wasn't Saddam a declared terrorist and criminal, brutal and evil dictator who tortured his opposition and killed hundreds of thousands of his enemies in an unconventional way in between 1982-1990?

LOL. He was even removed from the terrorist list and an ally while he was Gassing and murdering hundreds of thousands with chemical weapons and you want to talk about the morality of western intervention when it's well known that in 2003 (15-20 years later) he had no WMD? There's your morality of western intervention which caused half a million of deaths!!

Edited by Black Red Devil
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

It always gets back to America being the root of the problem with you man. So be it. Twist in it as long as you like but until you do something to change it you're just wasting your breath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

It always gets back to America being the root of the problem with you man. So be it. Twist in it as long as you like but until you do something to change it you're just wasting your breath.

I am doing something. I'm stopping you from spreading lies and false propaganda.

Also, this isn't about me or Americans (as in the population), it's about the conduct of your Govt and it's western allies (including my Govt.).

So unless you are being paid to do so or are living in a different reality, at least in our small virtual part of the world let's tell it how it truly is, huh?!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Perhaps it's because even when someone admits the war was a mistake, that isn't enough for the detractors. They want a pound of flesh. There is no country in the history of this sorry world we live in that has done more to repair the harms our fighting forces have caused. To deny this is patently anti American rhetoric. The world view that is being expressed is quite simple: America and to a lesser extent the west is responsible for all the problems faced by the planet. Worthy of shame and punishment. It's like a kindergartner who gets angry because the world isn't "fair".

I love the passion expressed here, and because it is so well expressed, there's no need to put words in people's mouths that they didn't say.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XingWi

To anyone interested in further reading, here is a link to another independant research carried out by a Tokyo based international human rights NGO on congenital birth defects in Iraq's radiation affected regions:

10 years after the Iraq war: Innocent New Lives are Still Dying and Suffering

The report also includes some photos to demonstrate the nature of birth defects in those regions of Iraq. Please take some time to read it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beany

Let's get this one out of the way. Saddam used chemical weapons, killed hundreds of thousands of his enemies in an unconventional way. He was a brutal and evil dictator who tortured his opposition.

OK, now let's talk about traditional morals and crossing the red line. Basically, under international law and civilised morality he should have been declared a criminal and hunted down for his crimes as soon as he committed these atrocities. YES?

  • In 1979 Iraq was declared a State that sponsored terrorism.
  • In 1980 the war between Iran and Iraq broke out and lasted until 1988.
  • It's well reknown the US supported Iraq with intelligence and weapons against Iran.
  • In 1982 Basra was under siege and the Iranian troops gaining the upper hand. Now have a look on a map where Basra sits. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are staunch US allies and provide a lot of oil (even then).
  • Saddam stopped the siege in it's tracks by pounding Iranian troops with Chemical weapons.
  • US intelligence and the UN were aware of this and did nothing (no sanctions, no red line, no threat of an invasion, NOTHING). In 1982 Iraq was removed as a terrorist sponsoring State.
  • in 1987 Saddam gassed the Kurds. US intelligence and the UN were aware of this and did nothing (no sanctions, no red line, no threat of an invasion, NOTHING).
  • In 1990 the Gulf War and invasion of Kuwait with subsequent sanctions against Iraq (Resolution 661).
  • In 2003 the invasion of Iraq due to WMD and Saddam's brutality against Iraqi people.

Since you talk from the height of your morality, explain the inconsistencies. Why wasn't Saddam a declared terrorist and criminal, brutal and evil dictator who tortured his opposition and killed hundreds of thousands of his enemies in an unconventional way in between 1982-1990?

LOL. He was even removed from the terrorist list and an ally while he was Gassing and murdering hundreds of thousands with chemical weapons and you want to talk about the morality of western intervention when it's well known that in 2003 (15-20 years later) he had no WMD? There's your morality of western intervention which caused half a million of deaths!!

The US didn't invade Iraq because of WMD's or Sadam Hussein's brutality. We invaded Iraq as a direct response to 9/11. The other excuses came later.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Red Devil

The US didn't invade Iraq because of WMD's or Sadam Hussein's brutality. We invaded Iraq as a direct response to 9/11. The other excuses came later.

No, 9/11 was the instigator that "allowed" GW Bush and his allies to invade any country which supported terrorism or harbored terrorist's who may threaten the sanctity and security of US citizens (and it's allies) anywhere around the world. Remember his war cry of "war on terror"?

The invasion of Afghanistan and the hunt for Bin Laden WAS a consequence of 9/11 but there was no excuse to invade Iraq.

As stated in Resolution 1441 the main aim for the invasion of Iraq's was Saddam's alleged WMD, which as we all know now, were never found. In fact, the UN never gave their approval for the invasion, hence the reason all unbiased political leaders, Human Rights Organisations and UN representative have always claimed its illegality.

As a consequence of this illegal, unlawful decision, close to a million people lost their lives. If this wasn't the act of a war criminal I don't know what is.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your_dark_passenger

Let's get this one out of the way. Saddam used chemical weapons, killed hundreds of thousands of his enemies in an unconventional way. He was a brutal and evil dictator who tortured his opposition.

OK, now let's talk about traditional morals and crossing the red line. Basically, under international law and civilised morality he should have been declared a criminal and hunted down for his crimes as soon as he committed these atrocities. YES?

  • In 1979 Iraq was declared a State that sponsored terrorism.
  • In 1980 the war between Iran and Iraq broke out and lasted until 1988.
  • It's well reknown the US supported Iraq with intelligence and weapons against Iran.
  • In 1982 Basra was under siege and the Iranian troops gaining the upper hand. Now have a look on a map where Basra sits. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are staunch US allies and provide a lot of oil (even then).
  • Saddam stopped the siege in it's tracks by pounding Iranian troops with Chemical weapons.
  • US intelligence and the UN were aware of this and did nothing (no sanctions, no red line, no threat of an invasion, NOTHING). In 1982 Iraq was removed as a terrorist sponsoring State.
  • in 1987 Saddam gassed the Kurds. US intelligence and the UN were aware of this and did nothing (no sanctions, no red line, no threat of an invasion, NOTHING).
  • In 1990 the Gulf War and invasion of Kuwait with subsequent sanctions against Iraq (Resolution 661).
  • In 2003 the invasion of Iraq due to WMD and Saddam's brutality against Iraqi people.

Since you talk from the height of your morality, explain the inconsistencies. Why wasn't Saddam a declared terrorist and criminal, brutal and evil dictator who tortured his opposition and killed hundreds of thousands of his enemies in an unconventional way in between 1982-1990?

LOL. He was even removed from the terrorist list and an ally while he was Gassing and murdering hundreds of thousands with chemical weapons and you want to talk about the morality of western intervention when it's well known that in 2003 (15-20 years later) he had no WMD? There's your morality of western intervention which caused half a million of deaths!!

It always gets back to America being the root of the problem with you man. So be it. Twist in it as long as you like but until you do something to change it you're just wasting your breath.

Schooled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Schooled?

Not sure what you mean in the comment - you might try expanding it a wee bit :)

Welcome to UM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orcseeker

I have to ask, If Osama Bin Ladin said, " Oops, 9-11 was a mistake, sorry about that!" then by your logic we should just let him go unpunished because the world is not fair?

A separate entity to the Iraq war. You may as well have picked any historical battle or act of war as the example.

What happened affected both sides horribly. With Osama bin laden. Who knows what actually went on because we don't know the full story.

Who really profited from this? Only a few. They're the ones that wanted it. The common folk, either a US citizen who is part of the military or a civilian in Iraq truly paid the price. The real war mongerers sat down and counted their coin while the rest suffered.

You'd be a fool to think the real reason was for protecting the people.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Almagest

Did you even read the links in the OP or are you just parroting what andthen said above? Nobody said American soldiers shot every one of them, the death toll includes the casualties as a result of direct violence as well as other causes related to war, its already mentioned very clearly in the news articles I gave links to. The question is why there was a war in the first place? If the US is not resposible then who is?

Haha, the day I parrot something AT says is the day I literally become a parrot(no offense AT). I didn't make any mention regarding my opinion of the war. All I posted was a defence of the US military's approach towards civilian populations. You are the one who brought the term genocide into it. "Attacking and murdering unarmed civilians, bombing them with depleted uranium and white phosphorus is not a war crime?! Attacking and mass murdering the civilians is not war, its genocide." Your quote exactly. Fallujah if you recall was quite an intense siege, and if it is the only example of the use of white phosphorus you can find in the entire war then it doesn't do much to support your claims of genocide and war crimes.

It's mindless sheep like you that are parroting the western media's propagandas. Yeah, "minimising civilian casualties" surely does include bombing them with incendiary white phosphorus and depleted uranium.... hilarious!

You obviously aren't a student of history, are you? The Allied bombing strategy in WW2 consisted of specifically targeting civilian populations. Ninety Seven thousand Japanese were killed in a single night of fire bombing on Tokyo. Give me one example at all like that, where the US deliberately targeted civilian populations with no military value and you've found your war crime.

Thanks for the "mindless sheep" comment. Everyone with that mindset considers themselves to be a shepherd and not a sheep, when the opposite is usually true. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Haha, the day I parrot something AT says is the day I literally become a parrot(no offense AT). I didn't make any mention regarding my opinion of the war. All I posted was a defence of the US military's approach towards civilian populations. You are the one who brought the term genocide into it. "Attacking and murdering unarmed civilians, bombing them with depleted uranium and white phosphorus is not a war crime?! Attacking and mass murdering the civilians is not war, its genocide." Your quote exactly. Fallujah if you recall was quite an intense siege, and if it is the only example of the use of white phosphorus you can find in the entire war then it doesn't do much to support your claims of genocide and war crimes.

You obviously aren't a student of history, are you? The Allied bombing strategy in WW2 consisted of specifically targeting civilian populations. Ninety Seven thousand Japanese were killed in a single night of fire bombing on Tokyo. Give me one example at all like that, where the US deliberately targeted civilian populations with no military value and you've found your war crime.

Thanks for the "mindless sheep" comment. Everyone with that mindset considers themselves to be a shepherd and not a sheep, when the opposite is usually true. :rolleyes:

From all I've read (not much) of Fallujah, it was a hell on earth for everyone involved. Willie Pete was commonly used in VietNam and has fallen from favor as an offensive weapon because of the horrendous suffering it causes. Has it been made illegal through international convention? I don't know. Wing nut appears to be welded to the left of any discussion so there isn't much chance of real dialogue but at least he is consistent - I try to be as well :w00t:

And as an aside - Xing Wi - the "wing nut" thing isn't meant with any acid, it's just a little humor. If it offends, I won't use it anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

9/11 made Iraq possible to pull off politically and then some, but it wasn't "why" we invaded, when obviously there was no link between the two things. We invaded Iraq in part for revenge, in part for oil, in part for national security interests of our friends, and yes, emotionally we were amped up to act because of 9/11.

We invaded Iraq in large part to come to the aid of our best friend in the Middle East, Israel. If the 9/11 commissioners could admit to this after their 9/11 investigation, that's good enough for me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XingWi

Haha, the day I parrot something AT says is the day I literally become a parrot(no offense AT). I didn't make any mention regarding my opinion of the war. All I posted was a defence of the US military's approach towards civilian populations. You are the one who brought the term genocide into it. "Attacking and murdering unarmed civilians, bombing them with depleted uranium and white phosphorus is not a war crime?! Attacking and mass murdering the civilians is not war, its genocide." Your quote exactly. Fallujah if you recall was quite an intense siege, and if it is the only example of the use of white phosphorus you can find in the entire war then it doesn't do much to support your claims of genocide and war crimes.

You obviously aren't a student of history, are you? The Allied bombing strategy in WW2 consisted of specifically targeting civilian populations. Ninety Seven thousand Japanese were killed in a single night of fire bombing on Tokyo. Give me one example at all like that, where the US deliberately targeted civilian populations with no military value and you've found your war crime.

Thanks for the "mindless sheep" comment. Everyone with that mindset considers themselves to be a shepherd and not a sheep, when the opposite is usually true. :rolleyes:

Why did you bring up the US millitary again when it has been made clear that nobody blamed the US millitary for all the half million Iraqi civilian deaths? Without reading the links in the OP you had commented that it's 'misleading' because 'the US millitary did not shoot half a million', and I cleared up your misunderstanding then and there. Done. The 'mindless sheep' comment was in response to your accusing me of 'parroting propaganda' and 'slandering'. Get over it.

...although I do believe that a large part of the US population is easily misled by the western medias propaganda and they never bother to look around for other sources of information.

The US invasion of Iraq was a war of aggression and was brought on by lies about the Iraqi WMD program that makes the whole war illegal and a series of war crimes. How much time would it take for the US millitary on Iraqi land to realize that they were lied to into this war? Not much I suppose. But they continued fighting. For what? For serving their country or to make the war mongerers rich or were they just following orders? Doesn't matter beacause it still wouldn't justify the killing of even one Iraqi soldier let alone an insurgent or an innocent civilian.

Genocide was not the aim but it was commited nonetheless. What motivated it was several decades long history of dehumanization of Arabs/Muslims in the western media. The US millitary shot at, bombed, used chemical and radioactive weapons indiscriminately against Iraqis, they did not even hesitate to dump radioactive poisons in the drinking water supplies. Radiation poisoning is not only detected in Fallujah but in Baghdad too, in fact in and around most battle fields of Iraq. It doesn't stop at this, radioactive particles will continue to spread throughout Iraq and might possibly reach Jordan and Iran too and will continue to pose radiation hazards to the population there for the next thousands of years.

In the words of an ex-U.S. marine himself when he was serving in Iraq: "we’re basically committing genocide over here":

After we left the city of Anu Mannia, it just became utter chaos. It sickened me so that I had actually brought it up to my lieutenant, and I told him, I said, you know, sir, we’re not going to have to worry about the Iraq — you know, we’re basically committing genocide over here, mass extermination of thousands of Iraqis, and with the depleted uranium that we’re leaving around on the battlefield, we’re setting up genocide for future generations within Iraq.

Source: Ex-U.S. Marine: I Killed Civilians in Iraq

More Links:

How the World Health Organisation covered up Iraq's nuclear nightmare

The Use of white phosphorus is considered a war crime under international laws, not to mention against civilians:

http://www.globalres...0-years/5347073

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XingWi

Wing nut appears to be welded to the left of any discussion so there isn't much chance of real dialogue but at least he is consistent - I try to be as well :w00t:

And as an aside - Xing Wi - the "wing nut" thing isn't meant with any acid, it's just a little humor. If it offends, I won't use it anymore.

All I am doing here is trying to draw readers' attention to the fact that hundreds of thousands of innocents have died in a US led war that was based on lies, so that maybe at least some may refrain from going through the same cycle of propagandas that are probably leading to the next war ahead - the invasion of Iran. How does that make me a 'wingnut'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XingWi

As a consequence of this illegal, unlawful decision, close to a million people lost their lives. If this wasn't the act of a war criminal I don't know what is.

I also believe that the death toll is far greater than half a million because the survey by the team was not exhaustive. A document in Iraq war logs supports this view that close to a million Iraqis have died.

Edited by XingWi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XingWi

The Use of white phosphorus

Typo: The use of white phosphorus as a weapon....

(Although it is understood by the context, but just to make it more clear to ward off anymore strawmen arguments)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Yes so it's like Saddam Hussein's aluminum tubes. It all depends on how they're used.

Like when the US and Israel use it, it's called "illumination". Here's what illumination looks like:

gaza_phosphorus_bomb.jpg

Oh, nothing to worry about, fellow UMers! These are only Palestinians. However, I didn't want to give anyone the idea that we're to somehow tolerate Palestinians being discussed in a thread where they're off topic.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Yes so it's like Saddam Hussein's aluminum tubes. It all depends on how they're used.

Like when the US and Israel use it, it's called "illumination". Here's what illumination looks like:

gaza_phosphorus_bomb.jpg

Oh, nothing to worry about, fellow UMers! These are only Palestinians. However, I didn't want to give anyone the idea that we're to somehow tolerate Palestinians being discussed in a thread where they're off topic.

Uhh..daylight there Yam... so NOT illumination though your point IS taken. But if I were a combat soldier moving in an area where every window could conceivably have a rifle in it, a little something to obscure the shooter's vision would be appreciated - just me though..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Uhh..daylight there Yam... so NOT illumination though your point IS taken. But if I were a combat soldier moving in an area where every window could conceivably have a rifle in it, a little something to obscure the shooter's vision would be appreciated - just me though..

Yeah sorry, to what a little something operation are you referring? Operation Smokescreen when the illumination nonsense doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Yeah sorry, to what a little something operation are you referring? Operation Smokescreen when the illumination nonsense doesn't work.

No, my point is that if I were moving on the ground there I would appreciate the smoke to cover me so I'd make much less a target. Hard to hit what you cannot see. And the reason WP was made illegal as a weapon is that it is horrific - I get that - so horrific even soldiers should be spared it. But these folks stayed and took their chances - hopefully based on their own consciences. It is inaccurate to portray the IDF as a war crime waiting the chance to be committed. The truth is that they endanger their own men and women to refrain from such acts - probably even more than the US military. But if your enemy chooses to fight among their families and places of worship then the choice is to surrender or work with what one is given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

the reason WP was made illegal as a weapon is that it is horrific - I get that - so horrific even soldiers should be spared it. But these folks stayed and took their chances - hopefully based on their own consciences. It is inaccurate to portray the IDF as a war crime waiting the chance to be committed. The truth is that they endanger their own men and women to refrain from such acts - probably even more than the US military. But if your enemy chooses to fight among their families and places of worship then the choice is to surrender or work with what one is given.

The most crowded place on earth now needs designated areas where warfare is allowed, that's a good one!

They're civilians, they live among their families and places of worship, and sometimes they fight where they live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

The most crowded place on earth now needs designated areas where warfare is allowed, that's a good one!

They're civilians, they live among their families and places of worship, and sometimes they fight where they live.

So the IDF should refrain from returning fire? That hardly seems rational in a war now does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.