US agression kills more than 50 civilians in Baghdad bombing attack

Zimphire--


Not at all. The religious wars were not about not merely saving lives from being fraught with heresy, but saving souls. For the people involved it was a MUCH MORE important issue than this; the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation sparked wars, were the cause of executions, confiscation of property, banishment, you name it.

The point is that because group A didn't like what group B was doing, they went to war. If group B's actions are basically internal, it shouldn't matter whether they have a different religion, a different economy, treat their people differently, or eat their eggs pointy side up or pointy side down.



Okay, in that case why can't Freedonia decide that because the US has a death penalty and is taking the lives of its citizens that they should go to war with us, and proceed to nuke our cities? From their perspective, they're right. They don't want the people of the US to suffer under our tyrranical regime, after all.

No -- While I empathize with the people of Iraq, I am saying that that is not in itself enough to justify going to war. Only if Iraq attacks, or is absolutely on the verge of attacking us, do we have a good case for war. (Do note, however that Lincoln rightly warned about preemptive self defense, pointing out that a warmonger could always claim to see an immediate attack even if no one else could)

The only other good reason, at least under our current obligations, is if so much of the rest of the world agrees that it is justified that there is no chance of numerous "justified" wars springing up for similar rationales. That is to say, a war authorized by the UN that otherwise didn't exist is a special exception and doesn't set a precedent.

I don't have a problem with that, and I think that there are numerous times when it's important, for example in the Balkans, or Rwanda. But that hasn't happened here, and it's no good for us to just decide that it should have therefore we'll go to war, since then it's no longer a special exception again.



Well, we are a signatory to the UN Charter, as well as a founding member. And we promised not to go to war unless it was because we were attacked, or because we were called in by an ally who was attacked, or if there was Security Council authorization for the use of force.

So ability, we may have. But not justification according to international norms, and not within our treaty obligations.

At this point we have just placed ourselves in the same boat as Iraq -- we're in violation of the Charter! If we were not the militarily most powerful country in the world, we'd be begging for someone to go to war with us in Iraq's defense, and begging for UN sanctions, if not an authorization of war against us by them as well. I don't much care for my country being a proponent of 'might makes right.'



No, that's us.

The UN authorized the first Gulf War and they didn't even have to, since we could have acted in collective self-defense with Kuwait. They authorized the Korean War. And the Balkans. And Somalia.

The US stopped authorization for war for humanitarian reasons in Rwanda because _WE_ were scared of how it would play domestically if US soldiers were killed, just as happened in Somalia.

We have no backbone.

The reason the Security Council hasn't given permission is because they don't believe a) the US when we tell them without providing evidence that Iraq is in violation, and b) that the situation can still be solved without resorting to war, which is probably admirable since the whole point of the UN is to prevent war.



Not at all. Only going to war if you're attacked first is how we keep there from being an insane amount of war.

Otherwise you're basically encouraging people to go to war just because they ****ing feel like it. After all, it's equally as just as anything else according to your logic.

I mean seriously, give me one reason why the US should not go to war with England over the fact that the people over there are oppressed by virtue of having a monarchy. I'd feel pretty damn oppressed if _I_ lived under a monarchy, after all. Must be just! Let's do it!

Dumbass.

Excellent post kangarooski - lets hope some of it gets through

Yeah and let Hilter and the Japs rule our ass well so I say **** that and death to this arse Saddam. This prick needs to go. Just like all the other asswipes heads of state that are like him.

******* ** ** Ignore List

To kvm_mkdb:

cheeky.

No method will satisfy the appeasers here, because they disagree with the level of danger that Saddam posed and the threat to the US. Nothing anyone says will persuade them that 1) Iraq is using propaganda, 2) Iraq is still using civilians as hostages, and 3) Iraq is still a danger to us and its own citizens. Nothing.

A casual definition of "insanity" is repeating one's behavior expecting different results. Arguing with conspiracy theorists, Leftists, and peaceniks borders on insanity. They know the answers to the questions, yet they keep asking, like a small child who hopes for a different answer.

Developer, I notice you love to post these propaganda, pull at your heartstrings posts. As they do anything but make me disgusted.

Lets see....

Have war, civilians die.

Don't have war, many many many more die.

Neither of them are good choices. But you take the one that has the less casualities.

I guess we will just have to disagree as to the comparison. I still believe it's not even close to being the same.

Tyranical Regime? Give me a break. Obviously with wording like that, you aren't thinking about this too clearly. So it's bad that the US accidentally takes innocent lives, But had we not done anything. Manymanymany more civilians would die on purpose? That logic makes no sense.

Speak for yourself. I think it is the BEST reason to go to war.
Again, that is a opinion. Iraq HAS attacked first. Iraq has attacked it's people, and the people surrounding them. Is it bad for the US to take up for underdogs? I am proud that we are willing to do so. Very selfless
You know we have more support now, than we did in 91 during the Golf War? Why is that? The whole word WILL NEVER AGREE. People have their own hidden agendas as to why they don't want to the US doing this.
Again, that is your personal opinion. I just don't agree with it.

No, we also have the Authority to do so. The UN has said as much. They have just said the never gave the PERMISSION to do so.

Basically what the UN is saying is. "We don't want to give you the go ahead, that would cause people to be pissed at us, but go ahead and do it, and we wont stop you" The UN has no backbone.

Then why isn't the US taken to war crimes court? I mean the US is powerful, but not powerful enough to take on the rest of the world I am afraid.
Because no one really was complaining.
NO the administration at the time (98) had no backbone.
Let me give you a hint. The US does NOT have to provide any proof against Iraq. Iraq has ALREADY been found guilty. Iraq has done nothing to prove they got rid of said weapons. The proof is on Iraq, not the US. See when Africa disarmed, they gave proof that they indeed did so. Nothing happened to them. Iraq has given nothing but excuses, and lies. BTW the situation can be solved without war? Could you tell me how? We have tried the past 12 years. Doesn't work. Just gives Saddam more time to get MORE weapons. Saddam doesn't even listen to force!!! WE are talking reality here. We do not live in a world where Saddam is willing to listen to peace talks and disarm willingly. I keep hearing people say this, but they ignore the fact that Saddam doesn't play that way. That it looks nice, and sounds nice, it's just not realistic.

How selfish of you. I would think people would be more compassionate. I guess I was wrong.
We aren't going to war just because we feel like it. And no, it has nothing to do with "My Logic"
I wish I would have read this last part first. I would never have responded to you. Dumbass indeed.

Take that, reverse everything, and you are speaking about yourself.

This war isn't "about" freeing the people of Iraq. That's no secret. Similarly, World War II wasn't "about" the concentration camps, nor was the American Civil War "about" freeing the slaves in the American South. In all of these cases, the things I've mentioned were convenient hooks for propaganda by the leaders of the opposing nations, in order to bring the people into line. The real causes of these wars can be debated endlessly, and in all cases, both political and economic factors come into play.

But, the slaves were freed after the Civil War, and the concentration camps were ended. And no one's going to deny that these were incredibly good things, and that quite frankly, there was no other way that these things were going to happen; Hitler was not about to give up his camps, and the South wasn't about to make the radical changes needed to its economy in order to free the slaves.

Now, we have a similar situation in Iraq. There does, in fact, happen to be great suffering there. Twelve years of failed diplomacy has cost two million innocent lives; that seems adequate proof that Saddam will never stop this as long as he is in power, and it's no secret that he will not willingly leave. And it's well known that the people are not capable of rising up on their own. Now that the military's grip on the people has weakened we are starting to see uprisings in Basra and some other cities, but this could never have happened without the war undermining Saddam's power.

Is this war being fought for just reasons? Probably not; the true test will come when the war is over, but I have my doubts about the picture coming out all roses. But there are just reasons to fight. And if you ask the troops, I'd be more than willing to bet that this is the personal reason nearly all of them hold for fighting.

And yes, sometimes, accidents happen. This idea of fifty people killed in Baghdad seems odd; even the Iraqi government -who stands to gain the most from inflating the figures- has not claimed more than fifty civilian deaths total. My personal guess is that they are actually being pretty scrupulous about this; they've got a lot going for them in terms of international sympathy, and although they might garner more of this by grossly inflating the figures, it's too much of a risk, because if they're caught lying they'll very likely lose it all.

Think about this for a moment. Some two thousand bombs have been dropped on Baghdad alone, and yet no more than fifty people have died there. That means that even at the worst possible failure rate, 98% of the bombs dropped have not killed a single civilian, and even at this failure rate only one was killed per bomb that failed. The one-civilian-per-failed-bomb rate seems rather ludicrous to me, given the nature of bombs; more likely, it's three or four at least, putting the no-civilian kill rate of the bombs at over 99.5%. And that's if all fifty of these claimed deaths were in Baghdad.

A 99.5% success rate at avoiding civilian casualties is freaking astounding, particularly when it's taken into account that these bombs are being dropped into a city and not onto a battlefield. Even your average soldier with a gun has a worse rate than that under those circumstances, just through accidents alone. And yes, that's what these are: accidents. Which is rather what differentiates the Coalition from certain groups in the Iraqi military at this point.

One thing the US could do better, though, is let down on the arrogance concerning accidents a bit. Even if they were just to move to acknowledging and apologizing for accidents -see the Canadians killed in Afghanistan, where the US basically failed to even acknowledge that it really happened- that would be a vast improvement over their current policy.

Ok Zimph, a question, do you think there is going to be a democracy (or at least a democracy-like) regime in Irak 2 years from now?

Villa

Edit: Follow-up question. Would consider that not having a democratic regime in Irak 2 years from now would be a failure for the Coalition?

I wont even begin to guess what will happen, or how long it will take after this is over.

Zimphire:


Well, as I said, back in the 16th and 17th centuries, it was considered an acceptable rationale for war. But no one would have launched a war for non-religously motivated mistreatment of one's own people, as is allegedly happening here. It is in large part thanks to the fact that no one was very happy with the course of the Thirty Years' War that there was a more relaxed attitude towards religon, culminating in things like the American First Amendment.



I'm just trying to point out that if someone is itching for a war, and humanitarian reasons are considered enough to justify war, states _will_ abuse that merely by using their subjective judgment, as we're doing, in deciding if there is cause for war.





Then isn't it okay for anyone to help out anyone that's an underdog?

Wouldn't it be okay for the US to attack countries in South America that had democratically elected leftist leaders that were hostile to the US and replace them with 'underdog' right wing dictators that we install but who are friendly to the US? As long as we call it a humanitarian issue?

Lord knows we've done it before. Usually to protect US business interests abroad. Look into the history of Hawaii or Panama. Or much of Central and South America, really.

I'm sure that we could find some excuse -- maybe the democratic government we want to overthrow issues lots of parking tickets or something -- if we really look.

Humanitarian reasons will permit war to ease suffering of people EVEN IF THEY DON'T WANT THEIR SUFFERING RELIEVED, OR DON'T CONSIDER IT SUFFERING AT ALL. In the end, it is frequently just an excuse. That it is real sometimes isn't good enough, because it's going to get abused so often.



If it's non-nuclear, we're too tough to make it practical for the rest of the world to do anything about us. And of course, with the rest of the world respecting the UN, our veto makes that difficult. This is nothing new -- the US uses our veto to protect our interests all the time. IIRC we're #2 right after Russia, with whom we were often at loggerheads.



No, the US does not have to provide proof against Iraq. But the Security Council doesn't have to believe unfounded US allegations either. And _they_, not we, are the judges of when Iraq is a) in non-compliance, and b) if force shall be authorized. The most we can legitimately do is lobby and use our vote.



You're right. The Soviet Union should've gone to war with the rest of the world because of the oppression of capitalism. They would have done us all a favor to install communist regimes. The US should've gone to war with them (and various monarchies and dictatorships) to install democratic regimes since anything else is to suffer under the yoke of oppression. Europe, having largely abolished the death penalty should've gone to war with the both of us for continuing to practice it.

Do you begin to see how anyone can say that other people are oppressed and suffering. There's no objective basis for this decision. Which makes it amazingly dangerous to global stability.



Look; I'm an American. Like a lot of Americans I am torn between two conflicting goals. The first is to see people all over the world having self-governance in a democratic mode. But the second is to not force anything upon other people and so become an oppressor no matter how noble our aims. A benevolant tyrant is still a tyrant.

This is one of the reasons why the US was deeply torn over the ****ing French Revolution, back in the day when we had ourselves just emerged from our own revolution.

Given that the world has refused to accept wars for such reasons to be legitimate for centuries, prevailing opinion appears to be, and I can't find fault with it, that it has to be handled slowly. That it is better to be a beacon on a hill than to sweep in and force people to do whatever you think is right, secure in your strength, not in actual rightness.

Of course, then again, I seriously doubt that this war is actually being fought for humanitarian reasons at all. But even if it were, that just would not be an excuse, the way that we've handled it.

How do we know it was even a Allied missle? Could it have been Saddam's own forces firing a Missle into that market? and then claiming it was an Allied missle? we know he has no problem mortaring his own people.

Just a thought

We have dropped 6000 Bombs in to Iraq how many casualties/deaths are there? no where near the 6000 bombs we dropped. The Casualties happen. These are very minimal compared to what it could be

I think this is prove enough of what american soldiers are capable of:

Edit: He's not worth arguing with.

http://argument.independent.co.uk/c...sp?story=392161

Thats only because you cant deny the facts! Or do you want to tell me american troops didnt commit massacres during the vietnam war?

War is dirty no matter which side you are on. The only reason i posted this picture is to remind you that also american troops are capable of warcrimes and i am not saying they dont try to keep civilian casualties as low as possible because i think they do!

No, nobody denies that US troops have commited war crimes in the past. Just don't exaggerate the problem, nor minimize the degree to which the US military has prosecuted those in its own ranks who have committed them.

The other thing to remember is that war isn't generally black and white. War crimes by some GIs doesn't mean that war crimes weren't committed by the other side in the Vietnam war. Be careful in your zeal to point the finger at US troops that you don't end up whitewashing the (far larger) crimes of others.