Did we score a victory?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
MTG, Obviously, you do not care for the UN being an effective organ for security. If the UN is unwilling to act with such a extreme case as Iraq, it will never act. That is the only conclusion fair minded people can reach.

Do me a favor and don't tell me what I obviously care for.

Economic sanctions are still in place, as is an inspection regime, the combination of which at least hinders Iraqi development, deployment and storage programs.

Iraq is not now, and in the near term will not be, a threat to the US.

Iraqi aggression has been contained at relatively little cost and relatively little risk.

A US invasion and forced regime change, with imposition on the Iraqi people (whatever they are) of a US approved government may well massively inflame anti-western sentiment throughout the Islamic world, and politically compromise many of the more or less western-friendly regimes in the region. Those leftist, know-nothing peaceniks that run the financial markets of the world are voting as to the risks involved with their dollars and Euros - the oil market is high and volatile, the stock market in the US is down substantially.

Perhaps, just perhaps, there are a few people out there who think that the US is undermanned for the task, and is taking a very high risk approach in a time where the overall global economy and US economy is less than robust. Maybe some of these people think that the US is undertaking this high-risk adventure when there are more critical threats to world stability, and when there is no need for immediate action wrt to Iraq.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I also challenge you to find evidence from a credible source as to the actual number of Iraqi civilian deaths from the air campaign.

That would be neither an American nor an Iraqi source, because both are propaganda infested and outright lie, at least those I can access here. The Pentagon doesn't talk about its heroic deeds, so I have to resort to numbers published by independent organizations, which of course can be only very rough estimates.

Just to show what a nice guy Saddam is, the Baghdad southern air defense sector C&C center was located in the basement of the Al Rashid hotel, where the Iraqi government had foreign journalists stay.

Yes, war correspondent is a terrible dangerous, but excellent paid job.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


That would be neither an American nor an Iraqi source, because both are propaganda infested and outright lie, at least those I can access here. The Pentagon doesn't talk about its heroic deeds, so I have to resort to numbers published by independent organizations, which of course can be only very rough estimates.

, there are no "American sources" for air war casualties in Baghdad - we weren't physically there to be able to do a casualty count.

Yes, war correspondent is a terrible dangerous, but excellent paid job.

War correspondent doesn't equal foreign journalist. Nice to show your sympathies by excusing Hussein's use of foreign civilians as human shields. Don't get on too high of a horse talking about war crimes, because you'll fall right off.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
War correspondent doesn't equal foreign journalist. Nice to show your sympathies by excusing Hussein's use of foreign civilians as human shields. Don't get on too high of a horse talking about war crimes, because you'll fall right off.

A foreign journalist, who remains in a country facing air strikes is a war correspondent.

And I am not excusing Husseins deeds. He's a butcher and I'd like to see him hanging. But hanged by the Iraqui people, not foreign invaders.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

That's when we award all those juicy oil services and infrastructure construction contracts to American companies. You didn't think anyone else was going to get any of that action, did you?

Who's going to pay them? Looks like its going to be the US public. Sounds like corporate welfare to me.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


A foreign journalist, who remains in a country facing air strikes is a war correspondent.

And I am not excusing Husseins deeds. He's a butcher and I'd like to see him hanging. But hanged by the Iraqui people, not foreign invaders.

There's a legal and professional distinction. War correspondents are those who travel and move with (or by permission of) combat troops and forward combat areas. Baghdad's a very big place (no shortage of real estate), so the statistical chance of any foreign journalist there getting killed is orders of magnitude below what a real war correspondent will face.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Agathon


Who's going to pay them? Looks like its going to be the US public. Sounds like corporate welfare to me.

Bush told us he had a plan to fix the economy, remember?

I'm sure somewhere in there somebody will want to put a claim on Iraqi oil to pay off Halliburton and Bechtel, et al, but it should be interesting to see how far that flies before we get reamed in the propaganda war.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Bush told us he had a plan to fix the economy, remember?

Yeah but I can't see how he's going to do it by running up the deficit and forcing a run to other currencies. I hope he doesn't start effectively printing money or you're all screwed.

I'm sure somewhere in there somebody will want to put a claim on Iraqi oil to pay off Halliburton and Bechtel, et al, but it should be interesting to see how far that flies before we get reamed in the propaganda war.

Doesn't look good.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The UN's credibility is nessecarily faltered when Iraq was allowed to piss on it. Iraq has sucsesfully defied the UN for 12 years. 1441 called for full, immediate, absolute disarmanent.

Isreal has defied it for almost 36 years, with US backing the whole time.

One more example of a lefty responding to a point with an attack on the US or Israel. Never answer, just attack.

Utter garbage.

One of the purposes of the UN was to try and stop war.

Mindless drivel. Another primary purpose for the UN SC is Security. Iraq is about disarming an aggressor worse than Hitler.

The problem isn't that the UN won't back up its resolutions, it's that the US has never respected it.

Two examples of parying an argument with a stupid leftist attack on the US.

Can't you lefties ever change your style?

[Ned]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'm somewhat shocked that this development hasn't been discussed yet:Report: Germany Aimed to Block U.S. on War

Although Bush indicated that he might ask the UN to supervise Iraq, there was a general concensus among the talk shows today that we should exclude the UN and particularly France, Germany and Russia, from any participation in Iraq.

I also know the leaders of the Iraqi opposition have made it very clear the do not want France or Germany involved in post-war Iraq.

Also, there was a poll conducted this weekend that showed France favorable rating dropping from 79% a year ago to 34% today, while its unfavorable rating has shot up from 19% to 69%.

Way to go lefties.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Economic sanctions are still in place, as is an inspection regime, the combination of which at least hinders Iraqi development, deployment and storage programs.

Iraq is not now, and in the near term will not be, a threat to the US.

Iraqi aggression has been contained at relatively little cost and relatively little risk.

As to the cost-benefit ratio, since that is all that seems to matter here, let's not count the 60 thousand a year that die from starvation in Iraq because of sanctions. Those are not costs to us - only to the Iraqi people. But, we should not be concerned about that because it is cheaper to let them die that to bring this nightmare to and end.

[Jac de Molay]

That problem might have been solved a long time if the sanctions oversight council wasn't used as a political tool by the US/UK.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


As to the cost-benefit ratio, since that is all that seems to matter here, let's not count the 60 thousand a year that die from starvation in Iraq because of sanctions. Those are not costs to us - only to the Iraqi people. But, we should not be concerned about that because it is cheaper to let them die that to bring this nightmare to and end.

I'm glad you're committed to invasion and regime change throughout Africa then, not to mention Myanmar, Cambodia, and any place else you care to name with a repressive government and people starving. (Since sanctions aren't the cause of the starvation, the regime is, so sanctions are irrelevant to that issue.)

Yes, it's about the starving people.

[Menlas]

Originally posted by Ned

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Economic sanctions are still in place, as is an inspection regime, the combination of which at least hinders Iraqi development, deployment and storage programs.

Iraq is not now, and in the near term will not be, a threat to the US.

Iraqi aggression has been contained at relatively little cost and relatively little risk.

As to the cost-benefit ratio, since that is all that seems to matter here, let's not count the 60 thousand a year that die from starvation in Iraq because of sanctions. Those are not costs to us - only to the Iraqi people. But, we should not be concerned about that because it is cheaper to let them die that to bring this nightmare to and end.

Another example of someone responding to a point with another argument.
Can't you ever change your style?

Well, I suppose you admit then the fact that Iraq is not a threat to the US ?

And about the "starving people" reason...well, see MtG's post, couldn't have said it better...

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes, it's about the starving people.

Not really, but the starving people, when combined with the real security concerns, do make the case against Iraq that much more powerful. Iraq is one of those rare instances where realist and idealist concerns combine and complement each other...