Le Café

[Nimrod]

I dont think oil, WoMD or terrorism are the first things on junior's mind when it come to Iraq or Saddam. Bush may speak of these in his speeches, but still not his main drive for war. W has admitted himself he hates Saddam. But his real reason is he wants to finish the job his dad started. Wouldnt you want to get the man the tried to killl your father?

[checkMate]

Right Quickbeam3

Nothing ever seems consistent when it comes to "righteous punishment" of despots. On the other hand if you start trying to keep the whole school yard in line, even with best intentions, you might just start lookin like a punk bully to everybody else. It's fine line.

[Frozzy]

I concur with Nimrod. It may be a personal matter...

[Thud]

Even if it is to an extent a personal matter, it doesn't discount the reality and gravity of the situation.

Besides, the job his father started was Saddam's fault as well.

[quinns]

After all the compelling evidence against Saddam Hussein by Secretary Powell yesterday, I still think the best way to deal with him is by a forceful extraction -- not invasion. The U.S. is capable of this extraction today. After Saddam is back in the U.S. for a few months and all the hollering has simmered down, we should send him to trial by the U.N. for all of his crimes against humanity over the last two decades. At the same time, a very strong effort should be offered to Iraq to help them rebuild into a solid democracy. I really hate to see us (the U.S. and her Allies) slaughter tens of thousands more poor Iraqi soldiers and civilians, just to get at one man. This won't be a "war", it will be a "slaughter", plain and simple -- just like in 1991 where we slaughtered over 100,000 Iraqis and lost less than 100 of our own. What a terrible shame. Extract his sorry a**! HE is the problem... not the Iraqis.

So much for my two cents on the subject.

[Frozzy]

I heard Powell's tapes yesterday, and they were very convincing. But the point remains that France has a veto, and I won't be surprised if they use it against the US r.e.: Iraq.

[Thud]

This won't be a "war", it will be a "slaughter", plain and simple -- just like in 1991 where we slaughtered over 100,000 Iraqis and lost less than 100 of our own.

These figures are absolutely wrong. Its obvious you don't know what you're talking about, even when talking about our own casualties, released as 392, more than 100. Further, we expelled the Iraqis from Kuwait. There are no innocent Iraqis to be killed in Kuwait, and Southern Iraq, the only other place our forces took, is not exactly a metropolis, so thus I fail to see how we could possibly have killed so many. The absolute highest estimate that is reasonable is 15000, with most being enemy combatants.

As for innocent deaths, Saddham Hussein has demonstrated his eagerness to cause these on a far more massive scale than we could even hope to accomplish. The Iraq-Iran war, in whoch Saddam used gas and other brutal tactics, resulted in far more deaths than the Persian Gulf war, and many of them were innocent.

[quinns]

Wow... That was a surprise, Thud. You want to turn this into flaming without even being sure yourself. How can you be so absolutely positive of your numbers that you want to insult me directly? I didn't want to turn this into a numbers discussion, I was just trying to make a point, but here are some quotes...

"During the war there were 467 wounded in action, 148 battle deaths, and 145 non-battle deaths. That means we had a 0 .1 percent casualty rate in the war as compared to a confirmed postwar casualty rate of 27.7 percent."

So I was wrong about below 100 (it was 148).

Here is the Iraqi death toll estimate quote from Washington in 1991.

U.S. News & World Report's "Washington
Whispers" page (4/1/91), which featured this one-paragraph item, captioned "The Grim Math":
"Although top U.S. commanders last week estimated that Iraq
suffered at least 100,000 military deaths during the war, other sources in the Gulf say the final
total -- including civilian fatalities -- will be at least twice
that. These sources say the allied aerial attacks inflicted far more casualties than previously
thought."

[geoffrey arnold]

here here Quinns and I belive its a personal thing with Bush as well. Saddam tryed to kill his daddy. Though Saddam is mad anyway. though I think it would be better to hellp the people of Iraq to topple him themselfs. suplying arms and stuff to the Kerds for instance. then the people are more likly to like the us and her allise

[quinns]

From CNN.com...

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gulfwar/

CNN.com

Gulf War Facts

The Coalition

The Allied coalition consisted of 34 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Canada, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Honduras, Italy, Kuwait, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Korea, Spain, Syria, Turkey, The United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The U.S. had more than 500,000 troops in the Persian Gulf War, while the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000, or 24 percent, of all forces. Here are some details about the forces in the Gulf:

U.S. casualties: 148 battle deaths, 145 nonbattle deaths

Army: 98 battle; 105 nonbattle
Navy: 6 battle; 8 nonbattle
Marines: 24 battle; 26 nonbattle
Air Force: 20 battle; 6 nonbattle
Women killed: 15

U.S. wounded in action: 467

British casualties: 24, nine by U.S. fire

British wounded in action: 10

French casualties: 2

French wounded in action: 25 (estimated)

Allied Arab casualties: 39

Allied combat air sorties flown: More than 116,000

Coalition aircraft losses: 75 (63 U.S., 12 Allied)

Fixed wing: 37 combat, 15 noncombat (U.S. losses -- 28 combat, 12 noncombat; no U.S. losses in air-to-air engagements)
Helicopters: 5 combat, 18 noncombat (all U.S.)


Iraq

In June 1991, the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner. Many human rights groups claimed a much higher number of Iraqis were killed in action. According to Baghdad, civilian casualties numbered more than 35,000. However, since the war, some scholars have concluded that the number of Iraqi soldiers who were killed was significantly less than initially reported.

Estimated Iraqi Losses: (Reported by U.S. Central Command, March 7, 1991)

36 fixed-wing aircraft in air-to-air engagements
6 helicopters in air-to-air engagements
68 fixed- and 13 rotary-wing aircraft destroyed on the ground
137 Iraqi aircraft flown to Iran
3,700 of 4,280 battle tanks
2,400 of 2,870 assorted other armored vehicles
2,600 of 3,110 assorted artillery pieces
19 naval ships sunk, 6 damaged
42 divisions made combat-ineffective

Enemy prisoners of war captured: U.S. forces released 71,204 to Saudi control.

[geoffrey arnold]

By the way the Australin senite has passed a vote of no confidence in John Howerd over this mater. We dont want to be involved and his makeing agremants with the sates without even calling the Government back from there Summer Holidays. There all mad

[Quickbeam3]

The Iraqi people will not support us in toppoling sadam America said they would support them last time the people rose up and then when america got what it wanted it cut them dry and left them to saddams mercy. Ps have any of you seen three kings with gorge clooney i think it sums up the whole war rather nicely.

[Thud]

In June 1991, the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner.

the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000

This is an interesting contradiction.

since the war, some scholars have concluded that the number of Iraqi soldiers who were killed was significantly less than initially reported.

Note this.

Okay. Its really not worth arguing about, people died. I think we all agree that thats bad.

[quinns]

quote:
In June 1991, the U.S. estimated that more than 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died, 300,000 were wounded, 150,000 deserted and 60,000 were taken prisoner.

quote:

the non-U.S. coalition forces equaled roughly 160,000

Originally posted by Thud

This is an interesting contradiction.

Thud, The "non-U.S. coalition forces" they refer to are not Iraqi, but other coalition forces that were not U.S. -- e.g. British, French, Australian, ... etc.

[quinns]

Originally posted by geoffrey arnold
here here Quinns and I belive its a personal thing with Bush as well. Saddam tryed to kill his daddy. Though Saddam is mad anyway. though I think it would be better to hellp the people of Iraq to topple him themselfs. suplying arms and stuff to the Kerds for instance. then the people are more likly to like the us and her allise

Thanks for the support, Geoffrey! I agree that Bush hates Saddam for trying to kill his daddy, and that may play a big part in the "final straw". There is more to it, though. I still think a forced extraction is the solution. This would solve a lot of problems, as compared to the host of problems created by invasion and occupation. No matter, if we do invade, I will support my people and my president 100%. There is still time for another solution though.