US agression kills more than 50 civilians in Baghdad bombing attack

I'm not saying that it didn't happen. But, coalition missiles have been known to go astray. Nevertheless, don't underestimate the atrocities Iraqi forces are capable of.

"British: Iraqis Fire on Basra Residents"
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansa...ews/5502292.htm

We have dropped,launched, otherwise shot into Baghdad and Iraq in general much more ordinance than the causalty rate. It drives me crazy when people say/report that we have killed this or that many civilians. A bad thing yes. It happens in War but the Allied forces are trying extremely hard not to cause too many casualties while risking increased causalties to the troops. This is a testament to the Allied troops and to the precision or our bombs and missles.

Maybe we should have not entered WWII. I mean, look at all the civilians that was killed.

Well but you were attacked, and had a legitimate right to defend yourself, at that time.

Villa

Yeah I guess freeing people from a Tyrant so that they have a better chance of living isn't a legitimate reason. I guess disarming a madman isn't a legitimate reason. I guess Saddam gassing his own people isn't a legitimate reason.

Silly me. We should just not think about those people over in Iraq, and maybe they will just go away.

I'm glad to hear you care about the Iraqi people.

I acknowledge your accident and raise you an "on purpose":



This is a father and his child after Saddam Hussein gassed them. Not because his gas hit the wrong target. Because he wanted to kill them.

As far as the inflamitory tone of the title thread: It wasn't US aggression that killed these people - if it was even a US bomb. If the US WANTED to kill civilians, many more than 50 would be dead.

Saddam could have ended this before it started. All he had to do is leave the country.

When did the Nazi's attack America?

Or was there definitive proof of a connection between Tojo and Hitler?

A little off-topic, but has anyone seen or heard any statistics of how many Iraqis have been killed by Iraqi AAA?
There has got to be some casualties from that. What goes up must come down...

I think that's the message of 'all clear' sirens: no more falling debris - you can come out safely now.

BAMM!

So war is just as long as our death toll is lower than his death toll?

Why didn't anybody tell the people who wanted to resolve the issue peacefully it is that easy.

A few questions:

1. How many years ago was that?
2. Who did supply the Iraqi government with WMD technology?
3. Who did support Iraq at the time?
4. Who gave them the intelligence needed for gassing the Iranians, and thereby later the Kurds?
5. What was done about that at that time?
6. Since when was a sovereign country allowed to force another sovereign countries leader into exile?
7. Is there any legal basis for trying to force another leader of a country out of office?
8. Did the US government really think that SH would leave the country?
9. How much was done to prevent the human rights violations by SH and Turkey towards Kurds?

Answers to follow...........

So every Iraqi has a safe underground bunker to go into when an allied air assault occurs? If Baghdad has a warning system in place (air raid and all clear sirens), how effective is it? I would assume these warning systems would be radar based and I'm sure most radar emitting sites in Baghdad are (or were) a prime target for allied strikes.

To re-quote davesimondotcom: Saddam could have ended this before it started. All he had to do is leave the country.

Prior to that point, Saddam could have easily brought all his weapons to a huge parking lot, called the UN Inspection Team, and had all his weapons destroyed.

Tell this to the people who wanted to resolve this peacefully, because they certainly are having problems understanding these often-repeated facts.

"War will come even if Saddam goes to exile." says white house spokesperson Ari Fleischer. (March 18. 2003)

Regarding the earlier US/Iraq connection: the law of unintended consequences.

BTW - conservative estimates are that over the past few years over 100,000 children in Iraq have died due to poor water.

Exactly how do you suggest we do the calculus? Do we only count casualties in war, but not from torture or keeping medical care and hygene from people? Or is it that we only count when the pictures make Americans look bad?

I don't discount the horrible civilian cost. However clearly the US is desparately trying to minimize them - to the degree that they are risking their own lives. Yet there definitely is a double standard often going on. All I ask is that if you make these judgments you define what counts as horrible so we can determine which state of affairs is worse.

They do have lots of shelters, but back in '91 one got bombed, killing 400 civilians so most people prefer to stay home or in the cellar.
AA fire normally explodes mid-air, debris doesn't destroy buildings when it falls down.


Not much apparently. What they know with absolute certainty is when they are firing with AAA.


Probably. But then, so were 'command and control centers'...

Exactly, but when you fire mass amounts of AAA over a city, you're bound to have misfires. These misfires can have different effects, like duds that usually won't harm anyone unless tampered with (on the ground), and low altitude bursts.
Also, a 9mm round fired into the air can kill a person on its �return trip�. Imagine the impact of AAA shrapnel on its �return trip�.

My question wasn�t about the lethality of AAA to civilians on the ground, it was a question of how many Iraqi civilians it has killed in the last few weeks.

You know this had been going on for almost 30 years now, with the US, and pretty much every western country help and understanding and blessing. Tell me what is so different now, that the US and Britain MUST wage a war, that was not true in the 80's? Why now? Why did Reagan provide Iraq AND Iran with weapons? Why did Bush Sr NOT help the rebellion in Iraq. Why would there be now such a keen interest in human rights and democracy that was not worth 10 years ago? So now the western countries are going to amend themselves by invading Iraq, killing more civilians against the will of the MAJORITY of the world. just for the sake of feeling good?

Yeah, that might seem like a human and sensible plan to some, but I shall disagree.

Villa

villalobos, didn't you know that first now the US has a president with the balls to stand up for human rights and peace in the world? Something the peacenicks and appeasers will never have as long as their economical interests and imperialistic wannabe governments are in charge.

Or at least the reply you will get is something like that

there is no doubt that the GPS guided weapons have spared a lot of innocent lifes. Nevertheless, it was very hypocritical to ask Saddam to disarm first, then to say that it really did not matter if he disarmed, he would have to be gone. He is a bad bad dictator, but he has been supported by the western countries whenever this was in their best interest, thi including the US France, the UK, Germany. The iraqui people has been suffering since day one, and will suffer more during this war.
Yeah maybe the inspections were not fast enough for the political agenda of the american politics, but they were definitely less brutal and bloody than any war, and they were containing Saddam. Khadafi was contained (by Reagan himsef, supposedly the best president since Washington) but Saddam could not be? Oh but wait, Khadafi had no oil.... Bush is seeing the presidential elections in less than 2 years, and the economy slumping fast so he must act now.

That's sad. Just sad.

Villa

Yeah pretty much definitive. Japan was 'allowed' to invade the French Cochinchine once France was beaten by Germany (amongst other). Basic history book stuff.

Villa

Edit: change YHeha in yeah.

Probably no civilians, unless they were suicidal enough to go outside before the 'all clear' siren. It is my understanding that troups might stand around and evtl. die, but they're not civilians.
But then, sh!t happens...

A few answers:



1. (How many years ago was that?)
Why, is there a statute of limitations on murder/genocide or something?


2. (Who did supply the Iraqi government with WMD technology? )
Virtually every western nation, not a one with much room to throw any stones at the other.

3. (Who did support Iraq at the time?)
^ See above. A key difference: The US, WAS in an unholy alliance with Iraq and Saddam Hussein. No doubt about it. But the US got a divorce and moved on. Other nations, masquerading as peaceniks,are STILL in bed with Saddam Hussein, every bit as much and more as in the past. Many hide behind the guise of �peace� in order to preserve the status quo they have set for themselves. Who cares about Iraqis getting an acid-bath when you�ve got a sweet little �a pittance of food-for-oil� deal going?

Which is actually FAR more transparently hypocritical than the other?



4. (Who gave them the intelligence needed for gassing the Iranians, and thereby later the Kurds?)
See above- who�s no longer STILL in cahoots and who is?



5. (What was done about that at that time?)
Umm, massive protest demonstrations? Ummm�wait a minute here� NOT! Geee, why not? Didn�t they know? Didn�t they give a good rat�s crap?

6. (Since when was a sovereign country allowed to force another sovereign countries leader into exile?)
Since when was the idea that ANY and all form of unbridled, out of control atrocity can be excused under this blanket excuse of national borders? (�Well gee, he can dunk in acid all the people he wants, just so long as he does it inside of some line on a map.�)

Why are such crimes so easily excused by those so afraid of upsetting the status quo apple cart that they can�t bring themselves to stand up and say: �In a truly modern world, lines drawn on a map will NO LONGER serve as a blanket excuse for mass murdering tyrant regimes.�

7. (Is there any legal basis for trying to force another leader of a country out of office?)
Is there any legal basis to allow a mass murdering dictator to keep doing so?

8. (Did the US government really think that SH would leave the country?)

Did anyone? Other than a complete idiot?
9. (How much was done to prevent the human rights violations by SH and Turkey towards Kurds?)

Yes, how much was done by ANY Middle Eastern nation? Do all nations in the Middle East play the �absolutely anything goes as long as it�s on THAT side of a line� game?

How many, who claim to be against ALL war, took to the streets to protest ANYTHING ever done by Saddam Hussein?


Here�s a Q and A for ya:

Q. How many Iraqi civilians will die, and for how long, in order to keep appeaseniks -who are themselves safe in the west- comfortable in their maintenance of the status quo?

A: Untold numbers and INDEFINIANTLY.


Q. How many Iraqi civilians will die and for how long, as accidental casualties of a war that will overturn the regime of a continuing mass-murderer and oppressor of Iraqi civilians?

A: A few, and TEMPORARILY.

Well, unfortunately this is the same kind of thinking that resulted in the religious wars of Europe. I mean, it was just unthinkable to allow people to suffer under the yoke of protestants, you know? Fortunately we ultimately got the Peace of Westphalia.

While I certainly don't like the idea that people might have to live in a tyrranical place, if the tyrant is just sitting there and keeping to himself, it is too _dangerous_ a reason to go to war.

After all, if not, the anyone can basically launch a war since the decision that someone is a tyrant or whatever is entirely subjective. And it means that wars become very unpredictable -- by this reasoning we have a good reason to go to war with countries all over the world. And they can themselves launch wars and use the same reason, making such a war as apparently valid as ours.

This is why I like the UN. It doesn't stop people from going to war in self defense, provided that they've been attacked, and that the UN isn't doing anything yet. But to just start a war out of thin air requires a lot of cooperation around the world. This serves as a great gatekeeper function, since many countries with differing views are going to have to agree that there's validity in the proposed action. Not any excuse will work.

Thus, while I wouldn't have been too upset if the present action were authorized by the Security Council, the mere fact that it isn't, all by itself is enough to make this a pretty bad war. Because it will have a tendency to lead to more war.



Doesn't matter much. Japan attacked the U.S. on Dec. 7, 1941, and declared war on us. Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S. on Dec. 11. (and Bulgaria and Hungary joined in against us on Dec. 13)

We didn't declare war on Japan until Dec. 8, and on Germany and Italy until Dec. 11 as well.

Though Germany had attacked some of our naval vessels earlier in 1941, so we would've at least had a justification if it had been felt politically viable.

What a bizarro comparison. This has nothing to do with religion, but saving lives. Yes, I know war kills people. But in the long run, it will save EVEN MORE lives. Not the same kind of thinking.
Well he isn't. Saddam just isn't sitting there doing nothing. I guess the people of Iraq's lives don't matter either. War is just too dangerous to help people. Let them suffer. War is just too dangerous. You know, I am sure if you think hard enough, you could block them from your mind, and then it wouldn't be happening. I mean it would, but it wouldn't be in your conscience anymore.
Bush has the authority to launch the war. He just doesn't have UN's permission. And they wont ever give their permission because if something bad was to happen, they don't want to take any crap from anyone. They have no backbone.

So going to save lives of other people wouldn't be justification? Only if this country gets attacked is is justified? How selfish. And I thought ti was the RIGHT that was self centered and uncompassionate.

I guess I was told wrong.

OK, I'm waiting for a clever comeback Developer...

Man, I really don't care for your girl's webpage. Luke's either.

GAAAAAAH! That whole little mac account is terrible!