Iraqi war forecast in 1920's

[Just Zis Guy]

On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:13:40 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Not a chance. From the Al Qaeda side, UBL barely stops short of refering to Saddam by name in his
>*Declaration of War Against the Americans*,

That passage could describe several states, and the statement he made against Iraq during the Gulf
War sounds for all the world like a statement against America - you could airbrush out the name of
the country and re-run it word for word.

>Sound "secular" to you?

Iraq was a secular country and is now, following years of isolation, an extremist dictatorship. But
that's not a surprise either - isolation of South Africa produced reactionary politics as well. It
was the right thing to do, though, and isolating Iraq is the right thing. There's no doubt that
Saddam is deliberately not using the money from oil sales to buy medicine. He is a bad man, no
question. But he has absolutely nothing to do with 9-11 despite the innuendo from the war camp, and
if you're looking for dangerous lunatics with weapons of mass destruction you could do worse than
turn over a few stones in Libya or Syria.

>There may be no great love lost between Saddam and UBL, but if Saddam will forge an alliance with
>the very Talibani Kurdish tribesmen he gassed in al-Anfal he'll forge an alliance with anyone.

Meaningless innuendo.

>*Vanity Fair* had an article a couple of weeks ago about CIA evidence of a direct link between Al
>Qaeda and Saddam.

Ah, yes, the CIA. The organisation that had incontrovertible proof that Syria was behind
Lockerbie right up until Syria was needed onside for Desert Storm, at which point the evidence
suddenly pointed to Libya. If the CIA stated that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West
I'd be out there with a compass checking it for myself - they have a long and inglorious history
of meddling in things it subsequently turns out they didn't understand, sometimes illegally, and
lying about it later.

Luckily friendly presidents who are former CIA directors will sometimes let the guilty off the hook.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 23:13:17 -0600, Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>In a recent Knight-Ridder poll asking US residents how many of the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackers were
>Iraqi, half thought some to most, a third had no idea, and only 17 percent had the correct
>answer of none.

Absolutely not a surprise. There has been so much dishonesty thrown around that it's hard to trust
any information released from "official" sources at the moment.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 05:14:15 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I have no idea what you're talking about. Where could you make a similar argument?

Dangerously extreme governments with weapons of mass destruction and territorial ambitions? Try
Israel and Pakistan (but don' ask where the money or expertise comes from).

Nations given to killing their own people? Try Indonesia (and don't enquire too closely who sold
them the aircraft used in the bombing).

>>However you look at it, nobody can possibly trust these people to make an objective judgement in
>>the matter - which is probably why the international community is proving rather less than
>>enthusiastic about the whole thing."

>I haven't trusted them to make an objective judgment on this or any other matter. I made the
>judgment myself, based on the evidence that we have at our disposal. At this point I really don't
>need to see any direct evidence of WMD to know that Iraq has them.

That's self-contradictory, IMO. You don't trust them, yet you trust the information they say they
have (although clearly showing it to anyone would violate national security or something).

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:30:12 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm not talking about any secret smoking gun, for heaven sake. I'm talking about his obvious
>efforts to confound the attempt to prove he has no WMD, which is *only* explainable if he has them.
>Either that, or he's just wildly eccentric.

The man is barking mad - he could easily be obfuscating just to yank the UN's chain.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Freewheeling]

"That passage could describe several states,"

You mean 'balance of power" was a foreign policy concern that transcended the Iran/Iraq War (The
First Gulf War). This is a revelation?

"and the statement he made against Iraq during the Gulf War sounds for all the world like a
statement against America - you could airbrush out the name of the country and re-run it word
for word."

And the statement recently attributed to him, that threatens retaliation against the US should it
invade Iraq should not be construed as favorable to Iraq? You appear to be unfamiliar with the
Bedouin concept: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." I fail to see how your attribution ought to
make any American feel much safer about allowing Saddam to proceed with his plans.

"Iraq was a secular country and is now, following years of isolation, an extremist dictatorship. But
that's not a surprise either - isolation of South Africa produced reactionary politics as well. It
was the right thing to do, though, and isolating Iraq is the right thing"

This implies, what? That we radicalized Saddam by isolating him *after* the Second Gulf War? The
extremism actually goes back to the second time the Ba'ath assumed power, in 1968. That's when he
decided that purges were the only way to preserve the regime. Again, in the words of that humanist
Democrat, Robert Kaplan: "The only sensible comparisons with Saddam are Joseph Stalin, Romania's
Nicolae Ceausescu, and Ethiopia's Communist tyrant Mengistu Haile Mariam, whose forced
collectivization program in the '80s led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands in addition to the
million or so who died of famine."

The point that Sandra Mackey makes quite convincingly in her book is that it's no longer even
conceivable to isolate Iraq in the way you describe. We played that card, and lost. It was a noble
attempt, done for all the right reasons, and it didn't work.

As for investigating Syria and Libya, you think we aren't?

The CIA is not promoting their conclusions about collaboration between Saddam and Al Qaeda,
primarily because it involves testimony in the absence of physical evidence. That seems rather
prudent to me. The item I cited in Vanity Fair is an investigative piece that turned up the CIA's
unpublished conclusions which they have not reinforced or supported. I'm not an expert on the CIA,
and don't rest my theories on their public pronouncements, but I'd take their word for things over
the government of Iraq if it came down to a choice. Oddly the peace movement seems to have come to
the opposite conclusion, which ought to trouble any sensible person listening to what they have to
say. Fortunately I don't think you have to rely on either one to see the reality here. And all I'm
saying about the so-called "collaboration" is that it can't be ruled out. Again, if the Barzani
Kurds, whom Saddam gassed in the tens of thousands, can be induced into an alliance of opportunity
with him any tribal entity can. Such alliances are the key to his staying power.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003 00:13:40 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Not a chance. From the Al Qaeda side, UBL barely stops short of refering
to
> >Saddam by name in his *Declaration of War Against the Americans*,
>
> That passage could describe several states, and the statement he made against Iraq during the Gulf
> War sounds for all the world like a statement against America - you could airbrush out the name of
> the country and re-run it word for word.
>
> >Sound "secular" to you?
>
> Iraq was a secular country and is now, following years of isolation, an extremist dictatorship.
> But that's not a surprise either - isolation of South Africa produced reactionary politics as
> well. It was the right thing to do, though, and isolating Iraq is the right thing. There's no
> doubt that Saddam is deliberately not using the money from oil sales to buy medicine. He is a bad
> man, no question. But he has absolutely nothing to do with 9-11 despite the innuendo from the war
> camp, and if you're looking for dangerous lunatics with weapons of mass destruction you could do
> worse than turn over a few stones in Libya or Syria.
>
> >There may be no great love lost between Saddam and UBL, but if Saddam
will
> >forge an alliance with the very Talibani Kurdish tribesmen he gassed in al-Anfal he'll forge an
> >alliance with anyone.
>
> Meaningless innuendo.
>
> >*Vanity Fair* had an article a couple of weeks ago about CIA evidence of
a
> >direct link between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
>
> Ah, yes, the CIA. The organisation that had incontrovertible proof that Syria was behind Lockerbie
> right up until Syria was needed onside for Desert Storm, at which point the evidence suddenly
> pointed to Libya. If the CIA stated that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West I'd be out
> there with a compass checking it for myself - they have a long and inglorious history of meddling
> in things it subsequently turns out they didn't understand, sometimes illegally, and lying about
> it later.
>
> Luckily friendly presidents who are former CIA directors will sometimes let the guilty off
> the hook.
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

 

[Freewheeling]

Tom:

As you know most of the hijackers were Saudi. But Tom Friedman also points out that they were
divided into two groups, what he calls "the muscle" and "the brains." Those in the first group were
younger, had little education, and had lived only in the tribal areas before being selected. They
were easily manipulated, as are most tribal Muslims. Those in the second group had all been educated
in Europe, where they had been socially isolated by a European culture that is far more
"Islamophobic" than the US. They therefore drifted toward enclaves grouped around radical mosques.
It is a common story in Europe, but relatively rare in the US, where Muslims routinely assimilate.

There are virtually no high level terrorist leaders or planners who were educated in the US rather
than Europe. As the director of Freedom House, Adrian Karatnycky, observes: "These are not
'sleepers' planted within Europe years in advance by bin Laden; instead, they are minted right
there, when they encounter the West... the Islamic terrorists were university-educated converts to
an all-encompassing neo-totalitarian ideology." And it is not poverty of resources that produces
them; it's poverty of dignity: the same thing that produced the Nazis 60 years earlier.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

 

[Freewheeling]

Yeah he's mad, but not *that* mad. He has survived over twenty attempts at assassination, dozens of
coup attempts, and two major wars, by being loony enough to "jerk the chain" of his political
enemies? And on this rather odd theory you propose to rest the security of Americans, let alone
civilization?

You're familiar with Occam's Razor? The number of modifications and adjustments to your theory
requires an exponentially increasing order of complexity in order to account for the easily
observable facts. The straightforward interpretation is that he's hiding something, and it requires
no increasing order of complexity.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2003 13:30:12 -0500, "Freewheeling" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I'm not talking about any secret smoking gun, for heaven sake. I'm
talking
> >about his obvious efforts to confound the attempt to prove he has no WMD, which is *only*
> >explainable if he has them. Either that, or he's just wildly eccentric.
>
> The man is barking mad - he could easily be obfuscating just to yank the UN's chain.
>
> Guy
> ===
> ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
> dynamic DNS permitting)
> NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
> work. Apologies.

 

[Dave Larrington]

Tch, Guy, *everybody* knows Saddam's dustbins could be used to hold Weapons of Mass Destruction...

FWIW, one of the funniest things ever shown on television was Mark Thomas painting a tank as an ice
cream van, parking it outside William Waldegrave's house and then doorstepping Waldegrave to ask for
advice on exporting it to Iraq.

Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Freewheeling]

Dave:

"Tch, Guy, *everybody* knows Saddam's dustbins could be used to hold Weapons of Mass Destruction..."

Nah, that's where they keep the missing documentation. Saddam ordered some
super-extra-large-emperor-sized beds, and he keeps the weapons under the mattress so he can play
with them after he slips into his red nightie.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tch, Guy, *everybody* knows Saddam's dustbins could be used to hold
Weapons
> of Mass Destruction...
>
> FWIW, one of the funniest things ever shown on television was Mark Thomas painting a tank as an
> ice cream van, parking it outside William
Waldegrave's
> house and then doorstepping Waldegrave to ask for advice on exporting it
to
> Iraq.
>
> Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
> ===========================================================
> Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
> http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
> ===========================================================

 

[Dave Larrington]

> Nah, that's where they keep the missing documentation.

Don't be silly, Scott. If he kept paperwork in his dustbins, any FLJS[1] could find it during
routine bin-raiding expeditions.

1. Filthy Lying Journalist Scum

Dave Larrington - http://legslarry.crosswinds.net/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
>
> You're familiar with Occam's Razor? The number of modifications and adjustments to your theory
> requires an exponentially increasing order of complexity in order to account for the easily
> observable facts. The straightforward interpretation is that he's hiding something, and it
> requires no increasing order of complexity.

Yes, if the UN inspectors find WMD's, Iraq is guilty of having them. However, if the UN inspectors
do not find any WMD's, Iraq is guilty of having them and hiding them from the UN.

How convenient for someone who wants to go to war against Iraq no matter what.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Freewheeling]

Tom:

"Yes, if the UN inspectors find WMD's, Iraq is guilty of having them."

Why aren't they guilty of having them if they have them? Surely we can infer that they have them
from their behavior, if such behavior is about as likely to come from an innocent regime as flapping
my arms is likely to lift me off the ground?

Moreover (and to directly address your question) the determination of innocence or guilt can only
take one of two routes:

1. Assume innocence, and demonstrate guilt.

2. Assume guilt, and demonstrate innocence.

The Iraq situation is the latter, for lots of reasons. The most important of those (besides the fact
that they've had them, and haven't documented getting rid of them) is that the consequences of a
mistake resulting from the assumption of innocence is catastrophic. If only one, or a few people,
are likely to be harmed or die from a guilty party being misidentified as innocent then the
appropriate method is "1." This is the conventional "criminal justice" standard: presumption of
innocence. It is appropriate in that situation. If hundreds of thousands, even millions, are likely
to be harmed or die as a result of such a mistake then "2." is the approprate method.

Now, you could argue that it would be a real tragedy if we mistakenly assumed Saddam guilty, even
though he's *acting* guilty (so it's not much of an assumption) and we can't find a "smoking gun" to
*prove* him guilty because he's busy hiding them, but it's an anemic argument.

You see, you can't minimize the risk of one sort of mistake without maximizing the risk of the
other. Think about it. There isn't an easy way out.

"The only smoking gun I want to see is the one that shoots Saddam." -- Dennis Miller

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Freewheeling wrote:
> >
> > You're familiar with Occam's Razor? The number of modifications and adjustments to your theory
> > requires an exponentially increasing order of complexity in order to account for the easily
> > observable facts. The straightforward interpretation is that he's hiding something, and it
> > requires no increasing order of complexity.
>
> Yes, if the UN inspectors find WMD's, Iraq is guilty of having them. However, if the UN inspectors
> do not find any WMD's, Iraq is guilty of having them and hiding them from the UN.
>
> How convenient for someone who wants to go to war against Iraq no matter what.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
> ... 2. Assume guilt, and demonstrate innocence.
>
> The Iraq situation is the latter, for lots of reasons. The most important of those (besides the
> fact that they've had them, and haven't documented getting rid of them) is that the consequences
> of a mistake resulting from the assumption of innocence is catastrophic. If only one, or a few
> people, are likely to be harmed or die from a guilty party being misidentified as innocent then
> the appropriate method is "1." This is the conventional "criminal justice" standard: presumption
> of innocence. It is appropriate in that situation. If hundreds of thousands, even millions, are
> likely to be harmed or die as a result of such a mistake then "2." is the approprate method.
>
> Now, you could argue that it would be a real tragedy if we mistakenly assumed Saddam guilty, even
> though he's *acting* guilty (so it's not much of an assumption) and we can't find a "smoking gun"
> to *prove* him guilty because he's busy hiding them, but it's an anemic argument....

Scott,

I would argue it would be a real tragedy if we mistakenly assume that Hussein is guilty, and
hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent Iraqi civilians die in the resulting war. [1] Or it
would still be a tragedy if Hussein has WMD's, but would not use them due to the consequences of
military retaliation, unless he felt he had nothing to lose, i.e. an US invasion with the goal of
"regime change", and hundreds of thousands or millions of Iraqi civilians die in the resulting war.

Of course, many consider Iraqi civilians to be worth less than other peoples, especially the
civilians of countries that are primarily Caucasian and Christian, so Iraqi civilian casualties are
not meaningful in their calculations.

[1] The UN estimates at least a half-million civilian casualties in a US -Iraqi war due in large
part to secondary causes as starvation and disease caused by the disruption of food distribution
and medical care and the destruction of infrastructure.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

"We may have different religions, different languages, different colored skin, but we all belong to
one human race. We all share the same basic values." - Kofi Annan

 

[Freewheeling]

Tom:

Given the diminishingly small probability that anything like that number of Iraqi Civilians would
die in a war, and the virtual certainty that a like number *will* with certainty die if Saddam stays
in power, the net risk assessment argues for nothing but action now. How many do you think have
*already* died as a direct result of Saddam's rule? Is the rate declining?

As for the rest, if he ever gets the leverage to overtly possess WMD what sort of paradise for the
people of the Umma do you think *that* will create? In terms of repression, according to Freedom
House, there are only two other states on earth equal to iraq: N. Korea and Burma.

The notion about deterrence working assumes two things: 1. that it's not the leaky vessel that it
is; and 2. that you'd really support imposing the consequences, let alone the sanctions and
conditions required for isolation. Saddam knows you won't because he knows you'd convince yourself
you needn't with arguments like those you've presented here, and if your perspective were the one
that continues to determine policy he'll eventually have you and the rest of us over that barrel.
And *then* see how many die.

I get a kick out of the argument that we stay out because of what he *might do*, after arguing that
the tragedy is what he "might not have*. Why do you think he's obsessed with WMD if he intends to
use them only "as a last resort?" And anyway, if he had a doomsday weapon like that it'd do him no
good *unless we knew he had it*, so that clearly can't be the purpose of such an arsenal. QED

"The only way the French will fight Saddam is if someone convinces them there are truffles in iraq."
-- Dennis Miller

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Freewheeling wrote:
> > ... 2. Assume guilt, and demonstrate innocence.
> >
> > The Iraq situation is the latter, for lots of reasons. The most
important
> > of those (besides the fact that they've had them, and haven't documented getting rid of them) is
> > that the consequences of a mistake resulting
from
> > the assumption of innocence is catastrophic. If only one, or a few
people,
> > are likely to be harmed or die from a guilty party being misidentified
as
> > innocent then the appropriate method is "1." This is the conventional "criminal justice"
> > standard: presumption of innocence. It is
appropriate in
> > that situation. If hundreds of thousands, even millions, are likely to
be
> > harmed or die as a result of such a mistake then "2." is the approprate method.
> >
> > Now, you could argue that it would be a real tragedy if we mistakenly assumed Saddam guilty,
> > even though he's *acting* guilty (so it's not
much of
> > an assumption) and we can't find a "smoking gun" to *prove* him guilty because he's busy hiding
> > them, but it's an anemic argument....
>
> Scott,
>
> I would argue it would be a real tragedy if we mistakenly assume that Hussein is guilty, and
> hundreds of thousands or millions of innocent Iraqi civilians die in the resulting war. [1] Or
> it would still be a tragedy if Hussein has WMD's, but would not use them due to the consequences
> of military retaliation, unless he felt he had nothing to lose, i.e. an US invasion with the
> goal of "regime change", and hundreds of thousands or millions of Iraqi civilians die in the
> resulting war.
>
> Of course, many consider Iraqi civilians to be worth less than other peoples, especially the
> civilians of countries that are primarily Caucasian and Christian, so Iraqi civilian casualties
> are not meaningful in their calculations.
>
> [1] The UN estimates at least a half-million civilian casualties in a US -Iraqi war due in large
> part to secondary causes as starvation and disease caused by the disruption of food
> distribution and medical care and the destruction of infrastructure.
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)
>
> "We may have different religions, different languages, different colored skin, but we all belong
> to one human race. We all share the same basic values." - Kofi Annan

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
>
> Tom:
>
> Given the diminishingly small probability that anything like that number of Iraqi Civilians would
> die in a war, and the virtual > certainty that a like number *will* with certainty die if Saddam
> stays > in power, the net risk assessment argues for nothing but action now. > How many do you
> think have *already* died as a direct result of > Saddam's rule? Is the rate declining?...

Scott,

While Hussein certainly has no compunction about killing his political opponents to maintain his
hold on power, the numbers or Iraqis deliberately killed by their government since the Arab Baath
Socialist Party has been in power since 1963 (and continuously since 1968) is small compared to
the number killed in the 1991 Gulf War, during the low-level war waged against Iraq by the US and
GB since 1991, and the economic sanctions that have been imposed on Iraq since 1991. (There were
an estimated 375,000 Iraqi casualties in the Iran-Iraq war, but that was a situation where both
sides were looking for a fight and Iraq was encouraged to go to war by the US as a means to punish
Iran. Without external future encouragement for a war in the region, would Iraq be intent on
starting one?) What evidence is there that the future would differ significantly from the past in
this regard?

What information do you have that that indicates that the UN estimates on civilian casualties in
Iraq during an US/US led invasion are excessively high?

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Rich Westerman]

bent content: to my knowledge, none of the wankers mentioned in this chart ride bents

http://www.nhgazette.com/chickenhawks.html

--
Atheist = knows of and uses Occam's Razor Agnostic = knows of but isn't sure whether to use Occam's
Razor Fundamentalist = what's Ockam's erasure?

"After ecstasy, laundry." - Zen writing

 

[Freewheeling]

First: a significant portion of the deaths you attribute to the "low level war" were imposed by
Saddam's deliberate attempt to undermine the sanctions, for instance by failing to take advantage of
"oil for food." (I've said this now, how many times? A half dozen at least.) Furthermore, estimates
of even *those* deaths were based on Iraqi figures, deliberately inflated for propaganda purposes.
Most of the extremely high estimates are primarily based on inferences about the effects of DU
shells, which are a bit like suggesting a holocaust from radium watch dials. It's basically
hysteria. Those who need to believe such things will, no matter what evidence is presented to the
contrary. Nothing I can do about it.

I also submit you're undercounting a lot regarding the effects of Saddam's rule. Does your figure
include the extermination of the Marsh Arabs? The exterminaton of the Barzani Kurds? The ongoing
murder and torture of people who would oppose him? The forced resettlement of the tribal Shia from
their lands into the cities? The consequences of the totalitarian destruction of the family/tribe
social safety nets? The consequences of the "brain drain" as everyone with talent and a futue
leaves? How about the effect of his wars, or do you figure he's not responsible for that? Oh, that's
right, we are.

The fact is that both the Kurds in the north and the Shia in the south are protected to some extent
from him by the NFZs, and especially the Kurds are flourishing. This in direct violation of the UN.

"What information do you have that that indicates that the UN estimates on civilian casualties in
Iraq during an US/US led invasion are excessively high?"

I can't find the precise citaton, but as I recall it was a study conducted by Columbia University.
The study also found that most of the "infant deaths" were actually children that had never been
conceived in the first place.

And anyway, your whole argument is predicated on the notion that there will be vast casualties from
a US invasion. And if there aren't, someone will undoubtedly make some numbers up that will support
your contentions. There's no end to that sort of thing. I'd spend all my time tracking down bogus
studies, like that Women's Studies professor, Marc Herold, who not only reported everything he heard
from Taliban and Al Jazeera sources as fact, but wasn't shy about counting many things twice. Marc
Herold should be drummed out of academe for that incendiary study that no self-respecting journal
would publish. You believe what you like I guess.

As for Saddam's future actions, I answered that by observing that he clearly has plans for the use
of WMD, since he's clearly sacrificed a great deal (or at least compelled his people to sacrifice)
for their sake. (Now, approaching a half dozen times I've pointed that out.) You seem unwilling to
acknowledge that inference carries *any* weight, instead prefering to extend a trend line that dates
from the end of the Second Gulf war, as though everything he's done since doesn't suggest his
primary objective is to break out of that box.

Bottom line, he's guilty until proven innocent... and has had plenty of opportunity to prove the
latter. He was originally given 15 days, which miraculously extended into 11 years. This time, the
bottom line matters.

Now, I'm outa this discussion. It's going nowhere.

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

"Tom Sherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Freewheeling wrote:
> >
> > Tom:
> >
> > Given the diminishingly small probability that anything like that number of Iraqi Civilians
> > would die in a war, and the virtual >
certainty that a like number *will* with certainty die if Saddam stays > in power, the net risk
assessment argues for nothing but action now. > How many do you think have *already* died as a
direct result of > Saddam's rule? Is the rate declining?...
>
> Scott,
>
> While Hussein certainly has no compunction about killing his political opponents to maintain his
> hold on power, the numbers or Iraqis deliberately killed by their government since the Arab Baath
> Socialist Party has been in power since 1963 (and continuously since 1968) is small compared to
> the number killed in the 1991 Gulf War, during the low-level war waged against Iraq by the US and
> GB since 1991, and the economic sanctions that have been imposed on Iraq since 1991. (There were
> an estimated 375,000 Iraqi casualties in the Iran-Iraq war, but that was a situation where both
> sides were looking for a fight and Iraq was encouraged to go to war by the US as a means to punish
> Iran. Without external future encouragement for a war in the region, would Iraq be intent on
> starting one?) What evidence is there that the future would differ significantly from the past in
> this regard?
>
> What information do you have that that indicates that the UN estimates on civilian casualties in
> Iraq during an US/US led invasion are excessively high?
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Freewheeling]

Rich:

Now *that* content's bent! I thought this was the off topic thread?

--
--Scott [email protected] Cut the "tail" to send email.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Freewheeling wrote:
>
> ... Now, I'm outa this discussion. It's going nowhere.

Scott,

There is always argument for the sake of argument. [1]

[1] Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig... You soon find out the pig likes
it! - Unknown

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities USA (Illinois side)

 

[Mikael Seierup]

"Tom Sherman" skrev...

> There is always argument for the sake of argument. [1]

Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?

Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...

Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED EVIL PAN OF DROPPINGS!

Man: What?

A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU ***! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS

STUFFY-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!

B: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!

C: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!

D: Oh! Oh I see!

E: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.

F: Oh...Sorry...

G: Not at all!

H: (under his breath) stupid git.