Artful Dodger: So.. the site "Accuracy in Media" is against common decency?? Even against stopping discrimination against women!!

And I must say.. The USA expects extradition to it's country and courts and yet this site does not want fairness in cases where USA people have committed crimes in other countries and hence extradition.

Bit of a joke site by all accounts!!

Artful Dodger:  So!  He joined some "liberal" organizations following his retirement.  That makes him an evil man in the eyes of arch-conservatives & organizations like AIM.  Can you even substantiate half the stuff in this right-wing commentary anywhere else other than such biased musings?

I can tell where culture has gone, there where it is missing. It went to the museum, to the laboratory and to the prisons of the mighty, be it their own homes, or the ones of the police. I'm waiting for the police u-turn my friends.

Artful Dodger: Why struggle people our days. Ya got to know when it's time for hara-kiri.

The alternative to the UN is culture.

gogul: Makes the French Revolution and understandable event.

Artful Dodger: All at once!

gogul:   It's all about money and power and the rich.  Off with their heads.

Artful Dodger: A world goverment. People who support that idea are dumb. Ergo, a world government would be dumb. The EU, the UN, that is like the tower of babel. A total nonsence for people who in fact are unbearable. A little mediadance, and they seem to look nice, and because we too are sooooo dumb we even start to believe it, don't we? Thank you sooooooo much for saving us dear UN, Ha the tv told me how great your work is, you save lives in Africa! Boah, fantastic!

The Terrible Truth About Walter Cronkite

You won't hear about this on the evening news.  Even Fox news screwed this up. 

Artful Dodger: If they didn't then they really forgot one great deal of a lot of the dynamic history of Iraq. Seeing as it wasn't that far in the past I find that hard to believe. I feel more they just hoped the old internal wars were forgotten about.

Übergeek 바둑이: I find it hard to believe that the 5% was not accounted for. So much 'watching' by various parties that for them not to know does suggest it was known.. or at least highly known to be unlikely.

If not... then despite various 'sightings' of mobile chemical factories (as was claimed) the intel was very, very poor. Stupendously bad in fact for the amount of effort being made. And since a certain C Rice interview over Saddam... I don't recon it was that bad, seeing as she had to give such a performance.

Czuch: I cannot say that, too much politics involving western nations and Arab states to say that without considerable error elements.

... too many fingers in the pie.. as it were

Übergeek 바둑이: The missing WMDs never bothered me as there could be many reasons for that. But the following has caused me to lose a bit of heart over the matter.

"A lack of a proper exit strategy, together with a total lack of vision with regards to iraqs internal ethnic makeup, led to sectarian violence and insurgency.

Dubious business connections, conflicts of interest, corruption in reconstruction efforts and other questionable business connections have made a lot of people question the motivation behind the war."

clearly the US did not fully appreciate the dynamics of Muslims in that part of the world.

People in power should never have a voice in policies when there's even a hint of a conflict of interest. It seems that conflicts of interest are the norm in politics. Cap and Trade is a good example of this. Many in power will make a great deal of money with cap and trade and yet they are allowed to have a voice in policy. That's never a good thing.

Czuch:

> Its just that many people, myself included, believe that those numbers pale
> in comparison to the death toll had nothing been done....

I agree with you in this. I think there are few people out there who will think that Saddam Hussain was harmless. He was dangerous, not to the US, but to his neighbors and to the Iraqi people.

I know that on the surface it might seem that I am constantly pointing the finger at the US. In reality I see the war in Iraq as a continuation of the same political and economic conditions that have determined human history going back to antiquity and ancient empires.

I think the big difference between the war in Iraq and other wars is that this war was fought in the public eye through telesion, the Internet and other means of communication.

We question the motivation of the war because many details of foreign policy, business interests and military intelligence became visible to the public.

The Bush administration chose to fight the war in the public eye and to mount a massive propaganda campaign aimed at convincing the American public and the world that the war was justified. I think the Bush administration made two mistakes in the public relations campaign preceding the war:

First, they chose to believe faulty (or manufactured?) intelligence that could not be corroborated before the war.

Second, they lost patience with the UN's lack of decisiveness and resolve.

If the Bush administration had chosen its intelligence more carefully and allowed the UN to come around and support the war, then the public view of the war would be different.

The Bush administration gambled that WMDs were there and that once Saddam was defeated the WMDs would be found and the war would be fully justified. They called Saddam's bluff, and then found themselves with no evidence of WMDs.

A lack of a proper exit strategy, together with a total lack of vision with regards to iraqs internal ethnic makeup, led to sectarian violence and insurgency.

Dubious business connections, conflicts of interest, corruption in reconstruction efforts and other questionable business connections have made a lot of people question the motivation behind the war.

The honest truth is that I personally have mixed feelings about it. Saddam was an early ally, and later a mortal enemy of the US. Lots of people have died, been wounded, become homeless, etc. Those things make me see the war (and every other war) as a bad thing, but removing Saddam was certainly the right thing to do.

(V):

> And to why Saddam didn't want inspectors...

We have to remember that Saddam Hussain did allow UN inspectors into Iraq. Initially UNSCOM did the inspections and oversaw the destruction of biological weapon manufacturing facilities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Special_Commission

UNSCOM was disbanded in 1999 and replaced with UNMOVIC:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Monitoring,_Verification_and_Inspection_Commission

Although UNMOVIC had confirmed that Iraq had dismantled all WMD facilities and destroyed its arsenal, the Bush administration went ahead with the war.

Scott Ritter and David Kay (both prominent weapons inpectors in Iraq) refuted the existence of WMDs after 1998, while Hans Blix was ambigous in his assesment of Iraq's WMD capabilities.

Iraq did allow inspectors and complied with UN resolutions, but what really caused a problem was Iraq's inability to account for about 5% of its WMDs. It was that unaccounted 5%, and faulty intelligence that led to the war.

(V): Well, you admit that Saddam didnt want inspectors, and it is true that he did many things to stall and delay etc.... for whatever reason, and thats where many of the UN sanctions came from...

Übergeek 바둑이: Those are not deaths caused directly by violence, but as a result of the war.




Its just that many people, myself included, believe that those numbers pale in comparison to the death toll had nothing been done....

Czuch:

> Maybe you will tell us? I dont believe that the civilian toll dead at the direct hands of
> US military(coalition of the willing) is as high as you might believe.

The issue of the death count in Iraq is highly dependant on who did the counting and how. Estimates of deaths range from about 100,000 to 650,000. I recommend looking at the article in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003

In 2006 The Lancet, a famous medical journal, published a peer-reviewed statistical analysis of the mortality rate in Iraq and came with a number of 654, 996 total deaths caused by the war. 601,027 were due to violence. 31% of those were done by the Coalition. That would be about 200,000 civilians killed by the Coalition.

Other surveys like the Iraq Body Count estimate a more conservative number of about 100,000. Other surveys push the number as high as 1,000,000 people. The problem is that few deaths are officially recorded, and many deaths are difficult to attribute to Coalition forces, the new Iraqi security forces and sectarian violence.

I tried to find surveys done by the US Department of Defense but so far I have not found any official estimates. If somebody can find them it would be interesting to compare them.

The dead are not the only casualties of the war. There people who are wounded, left disabled. psychologically traumatized, homeless, impoverished, etc. Those people are often ignored. The dead are one aspect of a war. The living who suffer are another aspect, and most people seem to ignore that too. I have idea of how many people have died as a result of hospitals being destroyed, lack of medicines, lack of food, lack of clean water, homelessness, disease, etc. If those people were included in the death toll, then the numbers jump to well over one million. Those are not deaths caused directly by violence, but as a result of the war.

Czuch: No it isn't.

(V): And to why Saddam didn't want inspectors... because the country's army was so weak that he didn't want the Iranians knowing fearing an invasion. I guess the USA knew that seeing as he was such an easy quick victory. Yet all that man power tied up there is a shame as it limits the efforts in Afghanistan.




Well this is a turn in your stance that there were inspectors that concluded no WMDs? It is too bad for to waste all that man power as well, I agree. I wonder why the borders was not sealed off immediately, but I guess that is easier said than done.

gogul: History is told by survivors of it, so naturally most history has it's ugliness when it comes to power, politics and the ilk. As for the horizon museum pieces.. no. it's a matter of the Taliban out lasting... they know they are no match for us in the battlefield.

And politics in the middle east involves more than the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Religion, cold war and much separatist division. Those who study history would be wise to remember that before Saddam Iraq was torn by civil war, he gave stability to that country, but power and being used by various factions in their 'best' interest power corrupted him and his regime. Billions of dollars fed into his economy so no-one else would have to dirty their hands with blood.

And to why Saddam didn't want inspectors... because the country's army was so weak that he didn't want the Iranians knowing fearing an invasion. I guess the USA knew that seeing as he was such an easy quick victory. Yet all that man power tied up there is a shame as it limits the efforts in Afghanistan.

No proceeding within seven hours. ok. Netanjahu is leading Israel to the abyss. It is important that Achmedinejadus and Hamas kinds (anti Jews everywhere) get concious that they are torches of infamy. Some persons, also some Swiss in particular, on this globe are at place to do the job face to face. It can not be anymore that the Israel and Palestinian establishments let policies be managed by incompetents. These are the FUNNY sides of democracy now.

The Jews didn't conquer Israel. The wizards should rethink their attitude about Joshua :)~

gogul: wonders if in the middle east there are some people left who can handle some 50-60 years of history.

Czuch: Its a bit like the Israeli/Palestine conflict. The solution is written in just some decades of history, but the boys there prefer to fight.

(V): Can you swap the perspective? One column was dead then came the next, this was dead too then came the next column and on and on. Wasn't that somehow satisfying. Come on, do it for us, just once!

gogul: Uuuuh duck, British columns at the horizon lmao

(V): Oh I forgot, Britain has nothing to sacrifice anymore exept some shameful gifts from the museum.

(V): Did you miss the videos of the British servicemen lately? Ugly stuff. British politics hide behind every bush they can find. Aren't you best positioned suggest some British sacrifices pending? British history is horrible next to the US, and it's British intollerance that made the start of the US worse :)

Czuch: look again, the western involvement goes upto 1990 there about's, and to vivify your position it would be helpful if you verify your knowledge.

(V): Looks to me like we gave Iraq arms when saddam was in his early 20s.... and long before he came into power.

Czuch: You've yet to answer anything except that you have no grounds to imprison those in da' bay

(V): ok now your turn...

Czuch: If you are that ignorant about the history in that region.. go away for a year and study. I might then stop having to fill in the gaps of what you know.

.... you could have just googled it and therefore knew before you answered!!

(V): Tell me what Saddam had done that we knew he was a bad guy?

Czuch: ...on what grounds. seeing as you have no moral high ground, your answer is no answer.

(V): I said it is okay.... you dont understand????

Czuch: Czuch, if you don't know... just say so. If you need time to look the matter over, just say so.

But constantly not answering questions as you do, just makes me feel you have no answers, do not know what you are talking about.. is this true?

(V): now you

(V): yes, it is okay

Czuch: Not till you answer all mine...

.. I'll give you a day to catch up

(V): gonna answer my question?

And as for politics...

The Conservative party is criticising the Labour party for not listening to the Army over it's needs in Afghanistan.

Yet as for listening to the Army's requests.. The Conservative party says it's only "extremely likely" to listen.

Whatever happened to commitment??

Czuch: You can't answer!!! And I'm not presuming.. I'm going by history.

And how do you stand by the USA helping Iraq, a known unstable state.. giving them Nuclear tech??

Or are you going to take the government line and deny everything.

(V): Where do you stand on the issue of Iran, and giving them help producing nuclear materials?

(V): I cant answer any of that, since I dont buy into your presumptions and premise

Übergeek 바둑이: So, are we really better than he was?

Yes....

Übergeek 바둑이: Iraq is no better than Vietnam was.




What exactly does that mean?


I have already given my first hand account from Vietnam, 2 decades later.... but a quick recap is that it was all good

Übergeek 바둑이: does anyone know how many people have been killed in Iraq?




Maybe you will tell us? I dont believe that the civilian toll dead at the direct hands of US military(coalition of the willing) is as high as you might believe.