http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154969,00.html

Justice....

A US soldier kills 2 Americans and is sentenced to death
US soldiers kill over 100000 innocent Iraq civilians - no charges!

Justice....

A US soldier kills 2 Americans and is sentenced to death
US soldiers kill over 100000 innocent Iraq civilians - no charges!

Aint it great!!  >:(

US soldiers kill over 100000 innocent Iraq civilians - no charges!



For one, the estimates from Reuters say 20,000 innocent people have died in Iraq since the start of the war.  The 100,000 is a big lie, pulled out of thin air, has no real facts behind it, and shows how badly some people should swear off the kool-aid.

Second, to say US soldiers or British soldiers killed those people is insane.  How many of those people were killed for no reason by US or British soldiers?  Most of those people were killed by Sunni terrorist, former Saddam loyalists, and ex. members of Saddam's elite republican guard.  It's disgusting you put the blame on our soldiers over the terrorist that blow up police, schools, and houses of worship under Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

Here's (one) source for the 100k number!
Even 21000 (Reuters) is still 7 times the death toll on 911!

I've personally seen various cockpit footage where US pilots kill unarmed civilians who were obviously no threat.

Regardless of the details, the fact remains that these innocent people died as a result of the war started by the US/UK.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html

Here's (one) source for the 100k number!
Even 21000 (Reuters) is still 7 times the death toll on 911!

I've personally seen various cockpit footage where US pilots kill unarmed civilians who were obviously no threat.

Regardless of the details, the fact remains that these innocent people died as a result of the war started by the US/UK.


Here are some estimates of dead by Saddam:

Kurds slaughtered during the 1980's:  300,000-500,000
1991-1992 Shia rebellion:                    40,000 per year
Iran-Iraq War:                                1,000,000
Saddam's "Reign Of Terror":              500,000-1,000,000

So when compared to Saddam himself, we are mere pikers when it comes to the number of dead.  And when you consider how many of those dead are by terrorists, that changes it even more.

Don't forget how many the UN killed through the corrupt "Oil For Food" program.

Of course, according to all statistics taken, Iraq is safer now then when Saddam was in power.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20053723.asp

Here are some estimates of dead by Saddam:

Kurds slaughtered during the 1980's:  300,000-500,000
1991-1992 Shia rebellion:                    40,000 per year
Iran-Iraq War:                                1,000,000
Saddam's "Reign Of Terror":              500,000-1,000,000

So when compared to Saddam himself, we are mere pikers when it comes to the number of dead.  And when you consider how many of those dead are by terrorists, that changes it even more.

Don't forget how many the UN killed through the corrupt "Oil For Food" program.

Of course, according to all statistics taken, Iraq is safer now then when Saddam was in power.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20053723.asp


';m appauled.  Don't any of you find this body count obcene?  We are talking about PEOPLE here, and you seem to be infatuated with numbers - he killed more than we did.  Again, we are talking about HUMAN BEINGS - dead ones.  Might I swuggest that we need a bit of perspective here, before we start comparing body counts?

Here are some estimates of dead by Saddam:

Kurds slaughtered during the 1980's:  300,000-500,000
1991-1992 Shia rebellion:                    40,000 per year
Iran-Iraq War:                                1,000,000
Saddam's "Reign Of Terror":               500,000-1,000,000



Good information.

I really don't understand when someone says the U.S. has killed so many people, someone else has to say "But Saddam killed more" so that makes it right??  Killing is killing and 1 is TOO MANY and it doesn't matter who does the killing and who is being killed!!





Cat

I really don't understand when someone says the U.S. has killed so many people, someone else has to say "But Saddam killed more" so that makes it right??  Killing is killing and 1 is TOO MANY and it doesn't matter who does the killing and who is being killed!!


I agree, but there is also a large difference.

The US did not set out to kill civilians.  "Collateral Damage" is a sad fact of warfare.  But there is a difference.

To the US, it is a mistake, and everything possible is done to prevent it.

To a terrorist, there is no "Collateral Damage".  Any death is desired, as it brings attention to their cause.

In the case of Saddam, he systametically slaughtered hundreds of thousand of his own people.  Not to mention his attempted genocide of the Kurds.  Myself, any intervention is desireable if it is to remove somebody who does this.  This is why I endorsed the actions in Yugoslavia and Somolia.  I think genocide is the most horrible crime possible on earth.

Now back to the original topic, I am glad that this "man" was sentenced to death.  He murdered Officers over him, and then tried to shoot his fellow soldiers who tried to give aid.  His journal was full of rants against the US, and how he had to help his "Muslim Brothers".  I think that if nobody had died, he probably would have been tried for treason.

I agree, but there is also a large difference.

The US did not set out to kill civilians.  "Collateral Damage" is a sad fact of warfare.  But there is a difference.

To the US, it is a mistake, and everything possible is done to prevent it.

To a terrorist, there is no "Collateral Damage".  Any death is desired, as it brings attention to their cause.

In the case of Saddam, he systametically slaughtered hundreds of thousand of his own people.  Not to mention his attempted genocide of the Kurds.  Myself, any intervention is desireable if it is to remove somebody who does this.  This is why I endorsed the actions in Yugoslavia and Somolia.  I think genocide is the most horrible crime possible on earth.

Now back to the original topic, I am glad that this "man" was sentenced to death.  He murdered Officers over him, and then tried to shoot his fellow soldiers who tried to give aid.  His journal was full of rants against the US, and how he had to help his "Muslim Brothers".  I think that if nobody had died, he probably would have been tried for treason.



Whether it's "collateral damage" or not, it is STILL wrong!!!




Cat

I still despise the death penalty, but Sgt. Akbar deserves bigtime punishment.

Whatever the exact figures of the civilian death tolls in Iraq are, you can be sure they're quite a bit higher than the U.S. government would like you to think.
Governments lie about war.  Period.

Everybody agrees Saddam was a bloody tyrant and the cause of incalculable human suffering.  However, the beef the U.S. government-military-petroleum complex had with Saddam was NOT NOT NOT his atrocities, it was and is about OIL OIL OIL all the way!  Saddam was our boy against Iran in the '80s.  He got too big for his britches and seized Kuwait.  That's when he got on the sh*tlist.  If Saddam had stayed friendly to U.S. petroleum interests, he would still be dictator today, and the right-wing would say nothing about his torture chambers, rape rooms, massacres, and gilded palaces.

Everybody agrees Saddam was a bloody tyrant and the cause of incalculable human suffering.  However, the beef the U.S. government-military-petroleum complex had with Saddam was NOT NOT NOT his atrocities, it was and is about OIL OIL OIL all the way!  Saddam was our boy against Iran in the '80s.  He got too big for his britches and seized Kuwait.  That's when he got on the sh*tlist.  If Saddam had stayed friendly to U.S. petroleum interests, he would still be dictator today, and the right-wing would say nothing about his torture chambers, rape rooms, massacres, and gilded palaces.


Oh yes, the US oil companies made so much money off of the Nationalized Iraq oil fields!

I am sure that the UN made much more money in the last decade then the oil companies since 1973, when they were nationalized.

BTW, latest news this morning.  5 more mass graves were discovered.  One containing at least 5,000 bodies, mostly women and children.  According to preliminary investigation, these were all Kurds from Northern Iraq, taken south to be exploited as slave labor before they were massacered.

Oh yes, the US oil companies made so much money off of the Nationalized Iraq oil fields!

I am sure that the UN made much more money in the last decade then the oil companies since 1973, when they were nationalized.

BTW, latest news this morning.  5 more mass graves were discovered.  One containing at least 5,000 bodies, mostly women and children.  According to preliminary investigation, these were all Kurds from Northern Iraq, taken south to be exploited as slave labor before they were massacered.

Our president and veep are oil men.  Oil runs our foreign policy.  One think oil men want is MORE OIL!  And that's what they went into Iraq to get.  They also went in to Iraq to show who's boss.  That's what it's all about.  If you think the administration has any intention of a democratic Iraq by and for Iraqis, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you!

I don't believe in killing people to show people that it is wrong to kill people.  What lunacy! 


I agree, but there is also a large difference.

The US did not set out to kill civilians. "Collateral Damage" is a sad fact of warfare. But there is a difference.

To the US, it is a mistake, and everything possible is done to prevent it.

To a terrorist, there is no "Collateral Damage". Any death is desired, as it brings attention to their cause.

In the case of Saddam, he systametically slaughtered hundreds of thousand of his own people. Not to mention his attempted genocide of the Kurds. Myself, any intervention is desireable if it is to remove somebody who does this. This is why I endorsed the actions in Yugoslavia and Somolia. I think genocide is the most horrible crime possible on earth.




I just read that a US soldier was convicted of murdering Iraqi civilians.  Just remember that all that "collateral damage" really means DEAD PEOPLE.  Dead women and kids, not to mention men.  Too many people seem to think it is ok to kill men, but draw some sort of line at women and kids.  If you can jusatify killing 1 you can justify killing thousands, or tens of thousands.  One is one too many. 

Too much death.  Too much genoicide, too much slaughter.  We are the only creatures on this earth that routinely slaughter each other on this level.  Wolves don't do it, bears don't do it.  No other predator does it.  Are we fundamentally flawed?  And if so is not God?  He made use "in his own image" after all.

STOP THE KILLING

STOP THE KILLING


Well, let's call al-Zarqawi on the telephone and see if he'll stop.

Well, let's call al-Zarqawi on the telephone and see if he'll stop.

I don't know, but I'll bet more American and British citizens have been killed by accident in in Afghanistan and Iraq than have been directly killed by A.Z.'s thugs!

I don't know, but I'll bet more American and British citizens have been killed by accident in in Afghanistan and Iraq than have been directly killed by A.Z.'s thugs!


That may or may not be.

But as you said, they are accidents.  That is a large difference from having them kidnapped, terrorizing them, then making and releasing a videotape of them having their heads cut off by a knife.

One is an accident, the other is deliberate act of horror.

One down, three to go. Saddam, Osama and El-Zaqawi should be burned at the stake, and the Iraqi people should sell tickets. ;)

One down, three to go. Saddam, Osama and El-Zaqawi should be burned at the stake, and the Iraqi people should sell tickets. ;)


As much as I sympathize with the idea, that is just not a good option.  It lowers us to their level.  I say they just have a quiet private execution as humanely as possible, and get it over with.

While some may find this barbaric, keeping them in prison for life will just encourage future acts of terror, with the hopes of having them released.  Look at all the attacks in the 1980's with the goal of releasing imprisoned terrorists.

As much as I sympathize with the idea, that is just not a good option.  It lowers us to their level.  I say they just have a quiet private execution as humanely as possible, and get it over with.

While some may find this barbaric, keeping them in prison for life will just encourage future acts of terror, with the hopes of having them released.  Look at all the attacks in the 1980's with the goal of releasing imprisoned terrorists.

Of course we don't burn people at the stake, that's medieval.  However, so is capital punishment.  If our government executes these wicked SOBs by lethal injection, acts of terror will follow all the same.  Extremists and self-appointed avengers never have a problem finding excuses to commit acts of terror.  Keep them allive, they'll commit terror demanding they be released.  Kill them, and the terrorists will commit terror in the name of just revenge.
::)

The world revolves around money, money revolves around oil.  Oil comes from Iraq, let's keep on the attack.

Cut down those trees! Man this beer is good!

OK it's settled, he gets the death penalty.  Now, how shall we do it?

I believe in the law of Hammarubi.  He who kills by the grenade, dies by the grenade.  So here's what I'd do:

1.  Handcuff him from behind.

2.  Stuff a live grenade in his mouth (do NOT pull out the pin)

3.  Tie a 6-foot-long string to the grenade's pin ring.  Tie the other end securely to a regulation basketball hoop (that's 10 feet tall).

4.  Then let him stand there without a chair.

5.  Give him a couple of Sominex tablets.

Walk away.

That's it.

[quote author=Ły

[quote author=Ły

Of course, in cases like this, I have my own ideas as to what should be done.

With Saddam, I think they should just let him go.  Stop the trial.  Simply open the cell doors, and let him walk away.

Of course, I would be shocked if he made it more then 100 feet.

I'm gonna have to come in with Cat, DC et al: from the perspective of the guy on the ground in Iraq, "collateral damage" is this nice, clinical term for killing the wrong guy.  It sucks, and if you get into the "Saddam killed more than we have" game, it shows you've lost the argument already.


The US did not set out to kill civilians.  "Collateral Damage" is a sad fact of warfare.  But there is a difference.

Let's look at this logically: if "collateral damage" is a sad fact of war, then our two countries set out on a war *knowing* that civilians were going to be killed, but this inevitability did not dissuade them.  So arguing that the US did not *set out* to kill civilians is disingenuous: they set out to have a war, knowing full well that thousands of innocents were going to die.  So, a terrorist may set out to kill innocents, but if you're dead do you really care whether the person who killed you was trying to do so, or killed you as an unfortunate byproduct of the missiles fired to try and kill someone else?  And will a dead man's family view things in quite the same "oh, it's an unfortunate but inevitable part of war" sort of way?



I am sure that the UN made much more money in the last decade then the oil companies since 1973, when they were nationalized.

Unless you have some verifiable figures to back up this assertion, it is purely your own anti-UN prejudice speaking.  ISTM that oil companies recently have turned in higher profits than the entire UN budget since 1973, so you might consider a rethink...

Unless you have some verifiable figures to back up this assertion, it is purely your own anti-UN prejudice speaking.  ISTM that oil companies recently have turned in higher profits than the entire UN budget since 1973, so you might consider a rethink...


That is rather simple to come up with.

Since the Iraqi Oil Fields were Nationalized in 1973, the oil companies have made...  nothing.  All of the money went to the corrupt Ba'ath party.

The oil for food program generated an extimated $10.1 Billion (with a B) for Saddam, and that is just direct payments.  It does not even include the estimated $800,000+ million in bribes paid.  THe amount made by the people involved in the recieving end of the scam (France, Russia, Spain, European oil companies, banks, etc) is still being discovered, but it is estimated to be in excess of $90 billion.  They were allowed to buy oil at 15-50 cents, which they then sold for international market rates.

During the oil for food era, oil cost an average og $15-25 a barrel.  The exception was in 199701998, when it dropped to just under $5 a barrel.  Even at that price, you have an almost 1,000% profit.

And guess what?  The Iraqi Oil Fields are still nationalized.  A lot of people seem to not understand that.  In other words, nobody but Iraq is allowed to drill or pump oil from them.

Since the Iraqi Oil Fields were Nationalized in 1973, the oil companies have made...  nothing.  All of the money went to the corrupt Ba'ath party.

"To the corrupt Ba'ath party"???

Don't you mean to the exchequer: sure, Saddam and cronies inevitably creamed off some, but the majority of oil revenues went towards running Iraq.  When the oil-for-food programme came in however many years later, the balance changed 'cause there was a lot less left after the creaming... but I still wouldn't mind betting that companies like Halliburton (whose subsidiaries *have* been implicated) made lots more than the UN... come to think of it, the UN as an organization made nothing at all out of it: your examples (absentmindedly, perhaps, leaving out any American examples) make me think of pointing out, say, Kenneth Lay, Enron, Martha, etc. and using that as a basis saying that *America* is corrupt.  You do have a very serious anti-UN bias, you know.

And seeing as it seems to be such a major thing for you: why *shouldn't* the Iraqi oil fields be nationalized?  It doesn't mean that the oil companies make nothing: they get paid for getting the oil out of the ground, but they don't get to take all the sales revenue and pass on what little they must to the country in the form of taxes.

come to think of it, the UN as an organization made nothing at all out of it: your examples (absentmindedly, perhaps, leaving out any American examples) make me think of pointing out, say, Kenneth Lay, Enron, Martha, etc. and using that as a basis saying that *America* is corrupt.  You do have a very serious anti-UN bias, you know.

And seeing as it seems to be such a major thing for you: why *shouldn't* the Iraqi oil fields be nationalized?  It doesn't mean that the oil companies make nothing: they get paid for getting the oil out of the ground, but they don't get to take all the sales revenue and pass on what little they must to the country in the form of taxes.


Actually, the UN collected an "overhead" fee, from 2-5%.  I did not mention that, because I do not consider that "graft" or "payola", simply "the cost of doing business".  I was only mentioning the worst of the corruption.  And yes, there were companies that were acting in good faith, and did not partake in the scam.

And have I said anything bad about Nationalization?  Actually, I have no problem with it.  I have absolutely no problem if a country nationalizes their resources, that is their right after all.  The only thing I ask for if that is done, is that they pay any Corporations for the equipment that was built before that happened.  I think that is only fair, otherwise it is just a nation stealing from the private sector.

And there are very few "Americans" taking part in the Oil For Food Program.  That is because the US declined to participate in it, and forbit it's citizens and corporations from taking part either.  Yes, there are some individuals and small companies that have been implicated, but they also all worked through overseas shell companies, and were also involved in illegal bookkeeping and other things that are just as illegal.

ANd you do not seem to understand my beliefs on the UN.

I actually wish the UN would go back to what it was like in the 1950's and early 1960's.  Back in that era, they were involved in several successful missions, including stopping conflicts in Korea, Cyprus, and Lebanon.  They used to move in forcefully, and stop conflicts.  And aid flowed where it was needed, and if somebody tried to stop that flow, the UN made it's presence felt.

Nowadays, the UN is an impotant organization.  They try to act like a police force, standing in the middle of 2 (or more) warring factions, and asking them to stop.  Is there any wonder that they did nothing to stop the killing in the former Yugoslavia?  And for all their so-called "efforts" in the Middle East, state sponsored terrorism still strikes Israel.

I like the idea of the UN.  I wish it would do what the original charter stated.  But sadly, in the last 20 years it seems to have become nothing but a forum for Third WOrld Nations to whine about how evil the US and European nations are.  Nato has probably done more to keep the peace in the last 15 years then the UN has.

I can think of a lot of failures of the UN over the last 25 years.  Lebanon, Iraq-Kuwait, Afganistan-Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Somalia, Congo (where peacekeeping forces and UN officials have been accused of over 150 human rights violations), and Lyberia.

And that is not even mentioning the Genocides they did not even seriously try to stop in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Sudan, Iraq, and continuing today in Somalia.

And when a nation breaks it's word, the UN does nothing.  After agreeing to stop their nuclear program in exchange for money, food, and oil, North Korea simply started it again, and the UN does nothing.  Iran is restarting their program, and again the UN does nothing.  Iran continues to export terrorism and threaten it's neighbors, and the UN does nothing.

It is not that I am "Anti-UN".  I actually wish the UN would get off of it's collective assets and do something.  Instead, they moan and wail, then file yet another "Protest".  Then they turn around and slam the US because it is doing something they should have been doing themselves.

Instead, they just continue to act like they do in Somalia.  Sure, they guard refugee camps, but they will do nothing.  THere are hundreds of accounts where thugs would drive right into a camp, load up people, and drive away.  All this while the "UN Peacekeepers" stand and watch them.  And how silent the UN and media are when those same captives turn up in mass graves.  And that is what they are accused of doing in Congo also (in addition to some troops actually participating in them).

Anti-UN?  Hardly.  I just have no use for them the way they are acting now.  If they act like a responsible governing body, then they will have my respect again.

ANd you do not seem to understand my beliefs on the UN.
...
Anti-UN?  Hardly.  I just have no use for them the way they are acting now.  If they act like a responsible governing body, then they will have my respect again.

Thank you for the clarification: a surprisingly similar view to my own, though I still think that the UN we have now is better than no UN at all, and certainly an order of magnitude better than the prospect of countries unilaterally going in to "sort out" problems in other countries...

One other thing I came up with in a bit of research on the oil for food programme, from the UN's own website:
The oil-for-food programme was established by the Security Council on 14 April 1995. Some 3.3 billion barrels of Iraqi oil valued at about $61.7 billion have been exported under the programme since December 1996. Of this amount, 72 per cent of the total has been allocated towards humanitarian needs nationwide since December 2000. The balance goes to: Gulf War reparations through a Compensation Fund (25 per cent since December 2000); UN administrative and operational costs for the programme (2.2 per cent) and costs for the weapons inspection programme (0.8 per cent).
2.2% of $61Billion??? That's $1.3Billion... sorry, you were right on that one, too.  I didn't realize the scale of the "oil for food/water/sanitation/spare parts/presidential palaces"... I guess it's hardly surprising the corruption set in when there's that level of money slushing around.  Sounds a bit like the EU commission ;)

Thank you for the clarification: a surprisingly similar view to my own, though I still think that the UN we have now is better than no UN at all, and certainly an order of magnitude better than the prospect of countries unilaterally going in to "sort out" problems in other countries...


This is why I am careful to not "Whitewash" people.  Just because I am Conservative, that does not mean I belong to the John Birch Society.  :)  My distrust of the UN evolved over the last 15 years, as I saw failure after failure.  I honestly do hope they someday return to the effective organization they were 40 years ago.


One other thing I came up with in a bit of research on the oil for food programme, from the UN's own website:2.2% of $61Billion??? That's $1.3Billion... sorry, you were right on that one, too.  I didn't realize the scale of the "oil for food/water/sanitation/spare parts/presidential palaces"... I guess it's hardly surprising the corruption set in when there's that level of money slushing around.  Sounds a bit like the EU commission ;)


Well, that is why I think some nations fought so hard to prevent the Invasion.  After all, if your country was making billions of dollars from a dictator, you would not want him removed, would you?3

Probably half of Europe was making money from Saddam.  Norway, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, the list goes on.  About the only countries that do not seem to have made money are England and Portaugul.  And of course, a lot of Kofi Anon cronies (and relatives) made a lot of money also.

And like I said, I had no problem with the 2% or so taken for overhead.  I can understand the need to cover administrative costs.  It is the graft and corruption that I have the problem with.

And this was hardly unknown.  I remember talking to my father-in-law about the "Oil for Loot" back in 1995.  But at that time, nobody seemed to care.  And as it went on longer and longer, it just got worse.

Of course, that was the same time that there was a lot of screaming that the US was starving children in Iraq.  Some people started to wonder how children were starving with so much money entering the country, and they quietly shut up and dissapeared.  I was one of them that wondered how people were starving with billions of dollars entering the country.  That could only be explained to me by corruption.  And sure enough, that was exactly the cause.