Cost Of Iraqi Occupation

[mebadgett]

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953

The human cost of Iraqi occupation: http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/casualties.html

The $$$ cost of Iraqi occupation : http://costofwar.com/

[Greyhawk]

Having been a soilder and seen combat action as well as peace keeping action, I know the costs of any conflict. And although I will not go into my personal views of the war in Iraq here. I will share some of my personal experiences during the Iran/Iraq peace keeping mission I was sent on.

My Unit was stationed on the Iran/Iraq border we were sent into Iraq to a Kurd village and ordered to clean up the bodies from an Iraqi chem. attack, the entire village was dead.

So if you want to discuss the cost of the Iraq Occupation then I suggest you do your research and look further back into Sadam Husseins history, and the Millions (yes Millions) of lives he has cost.

Greyhawk

[pete61uk]

Greyhawk said:

So if you want to discuss the cost of the Iraq Occupation then I suggest you do your research and look further back into Sadam Husseins history, and the Millions (yes Millions) of lives he has cost.

WELL SAID!

[fmtroute]

So if you want to discuss the cost of the Iraq Occupation then I suggest you do your research and look further back into Sadam Husseins history, and the Millions (yes Millions) of lives he has cost.

Greyhawk

Bravo!!

[OSFan]

So killing more innocent people is a solution?

Well said me!

[carbonize]

Lets think back to when the UK ruled most of the world and slaughtered Afrians in their thousands. Back when American treated coloured people as less than human.

How many dictators have their been in the past that have killed their own people en mass? Anyone remember polpott? Did American goto war over his treatment of his people? NO! Could it of been because his country had no oil fields?

[matauri]

I actually found the death count quite low for the invasion of a country. I thought the troops did well for the most part. Saddam gave in too easily. Even if he did hide the WMD's elsewhere, you would think he would have carried out one of his threats. He is such a suspect man.



Cindy

[minstrel]

Saddam gave in too easily. Even if he did hide the WMD's elsewhere, you would think he would have carried out one of his threats. He is such a suspect man.

Hard to argue against that.

The politics of war is never an easy issue, and I'm far from a warmonger believe me. Last year, my then 17 year old son went to Europe to represent Ontario as part of a delegation to mark the anniversary of Vimy Ridge. He came back with very strong views about war and peace and humanity - he felt, perhaps rightly, that all he had learned about World War I told him that the war was avoidable but that because of political egos a lot of innocent people died.

My response to him was that in most situations I agreed with him - war should never be the first resort, or even the second or third. But I asked him to think about what the world was facing in World War II. How do you negotiate with a mad man like Hitler? How do you negotiate with a man like Idi Amin? or Omar Kadaffi? or Saddam Hussein? How do you negotiate with someone who has no interest at all in negiotiating but only in manipulating people into thinking he is to allow him time to proceed with whatever are his real intentions? Negotiating with Hitler simply allowed him more time to strengthen his armies and add to his stockpile of weapons.

I don't know all the facts that went into decisions about the Iraqui war and it will probably be a long time before all is revealed. I have had enough contact with individuals in the intelligence industry and in the law enforcement industry to know that members of the public never know the full story. That makes it even more essential that we elect individuals to office whose judgement and integrity we can trust, because they are going to make decisions based on information we don't have. It's easy these days to be cynical, because so many politicians have shown themselves to be unworthy of trust. But I have also seen some of the victims of civil wars in countries where outrageous atrocities were committed and where we could have done something to stop those atrocities but our leaders chose on our behalf to do nothing.

[pete61uk]

Calling the Iraqi liberation an 'occupation' is a device of the politically 'correct' to justify a position of 'if you do nothing, you do no harm'. It helps them to sleep at night and gives them a sense of power where before they felt only impotence.

Well, bless their cotton socks, when good people are faced with blatant disregard for international law - and NO, going into Iraq was not against international law – and continue to do nothing they damn us all.

Those who are pc on this topic will claim with cynicism (and, rightly so, many have died so that you have that right) that the war is about oil or getting re-elected on the back of a great victory. Not a position I subscribe to, but a valid assumption none the less.

However, taking that point on board. Within UK politics Blair had, and still has, no effective elect able opposition. His greatest political threat is from within his own party. Had he not made the difficult decision to join the coalition he would be en-route to coast through the next elections.

As for Bush. Who knows what he was thinking? From what I have been told by friends in the US he was before, and still is, unlikely to be re-elected. Go figure?

The only thing of which I was certain of from the start was that the war was going to be more of a Northern Ireland scenario than that favoured by the US, ‘Get in, get it over, get out quick!’ They are neither trained nor ideologically equipped for that kind of action. Sadly, many of our comrades have died because of this, and many more will join them before the conflict is over.

However, whilst the self-righteous continue with their protestations, they will continue to do their duty, and some will die without having seen the face of the terrorist who has killed them knowing that they do so to make the world a better place, that a lasting peace throughout the Middle East is the ultimate aim.

Something of an occupational hazard, the irony is that they will also know that many who will benefit from their sacrifice are those who berate them from behind the comfort of a shield that, by their courage, conviction and sacrifice, they provide.

[OSFan]

Of course Saddam hid the weapons, he just put them in his suitcase and took them into hiding with him.

There are countries of a much bigger threat, we know other countries have weapons, we know they will use them against their neighbours. Iraq denied WMD, none was found before or after the war.

Yes they did things in the past, but why wasn't it sorted out then? Oil supplies not so low back then?

Oh, and Iraq is in a much worse state after the war than it was previous.

[carbonize]

Well, bless their cotton socks, when good people are faced with blatant disregard for international law - and NO, going into Iraq was not against international law – and continue to do nothing they damn us all.

Actually the war against Iraq is against international law. They tried to justify the war by claiming he was a threat to the safety of the world. They claimed they had to attack him as he had weapons of mass destruction and was harbouring/training terrorist. None of these claims have yet been proven true, there is no evidence of WMD's and the UN inspectors have now said they think there hasn't been any there for 10 years. As for terrorists since when did Iraq have international terrorist? I have never heard of Iraqi terrorists.

I'm all for freeing people from oppression, from giving them back their rights and their freedom, but Iraq was not about this.

America is now even thinking of making Iraq pay for all the repair work being done by an American firm.

[Greyhawk]

Of course Saddam hid the weapons, he just put them in his suitcase and took them into hiding with him.

There are countries of a much bigger threat, we know other countries have weapons, we know they will use them against their neighbours. Iraq denied WMD, none was found before or after the war.

Yes they did things in the past, but why wasn't it sorted out then? Oil supplies not so low back then?

Oh, and Iraq is in a much worse state after the war than it was previous.

I will tell you what when YOU pick up the body of a three month old child and have to place it on a burning pile. Then and ONLY then you can look ME in the eye and tell me invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam was wrong until that time I will be thankful that the job was done, because that is what I went through in Iraq and relive on an almost nightly basis.

Greyhawk

[OSFan]

Iraqi terrorist - Maybe we are stereotyping any person who happens to live in the east as being a terrorist.

[paulhiles]

Hey everyone,

I don't want this thread to degenerate into an argument over whether the war against Iraq was justified or not. That argument will not achieve anything.

The fact is, the war did happen, it is now over, and the problem facing both Iraq and the countries carrying out peace-keeping work is how long can they maintain that level of support. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Especially when essential work, even that carried out by organisations such as the Red Cross, is being hampered by small pockets of resistance still loyal to Saddam.

Paul

[carbonize]

From what I've read Iraq is now a magnet for anti-America terrorist. So the attcks may not be resistance but terrorists hitting out at America.

[OSFan]

Oh dear. You think I condone what Saddam did? Well that is an insult and I will not make further posts in this thread.

[pete61uk]

Carbonize:

I'm pleased to see that you appear to have modified your position as regards the terrorist activity within Iraq.

However, it seems that 12 years of flouting the law and deliberately obstructing the inspectors does not a legal action make? Hmmm, we shall have to agree to disagree about that.

I believe there are two aspects to those participating in the terrorist activity; first, those who believe, or are led to believe, that this is a religious war, their fear of change being fuelled by religious fundamentalism directed against the West and USA?

And second - the controlling element in these activities – career terrorists, and those who profit from their activities, whose motivation is all about power and what it can represent financed by what remains of the old regime?

As to the future of Iraq and self-determination of its people? Their future is the same as our own. Which is precisely why a distrust of the politics and healthy debate is essential.

[carbonize]

Never saw America to concerned about the fact Ireland was harbouring and training terrorist. They didn't seem in a rush to deal with Israel and Palestein, both of which train and harbour terrorists. And if it was because of how badly saddam treated his people then what about all the other dictators that kill and persecute their own people? While these are all valid reasons for attacking Iraq I think we can all agree that it's not the real reason Bush wanted to do it but an excuse his people came up with to justify it.

[matauri]

I believe there are two aspects to those participating in the terrorist activity;

I think that it extends further, and by no means for the benefit of the Iraqi or Muslim countries.
1. The oppressed. I dont mean those that have only been oppressed by Saddam, but those that have been oppressed by international forces also. The people of Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, etc who have been used as a public 'proving' ground for both sides. They have suffered thru the inadequacy of previous 'liberation' wars by all sides. Now its a case of better the devil you know than the devil you dont know. Their families are still starving & getting maimed no matter who is in power. Generations over the past 30 odd years are now growing up knowing they will be pawns in some ones game, so why not fight for the side that will offer a financial reward for their efforts. They have the mighty $$$$ waved under their noses & propaganda to sway their opinion. Check out the ages of the majority of these suicide bombers. To them, a noble way to die in aid of fellow countrymen & their family will be supported well afterwards.

2. Career fighters. Which can be split further into, those that just enjoy a fight & will fight for whichever side is offering the most, and, those that have gripes against thier own govts & will use whatever causes suits them to fight against it. Most aren't even muslim or islamic, or anything. It's just a good reason to get into a fight, mercenaries.

3. Those who profit from their activities, can also be split. There are countries that will have lucrative contracts jeopardised if Iraq, etc demonstrates even the slightest western influence. There are also countries that have huge loans outstanding to Iraq, etc, they fear they will not be compensated. Then there are major corporations at work who will benefit one side or the other. These corporations are not above hiring mercenaries to thrawt efforts by either sides.

Fingers can be pointed in many directions. There are many that are profiting from terrorism, because terrorism causes confusion & fear. The terrorists themselves are dispensible. People not of military, financial or of profile. I often wonder if provided with a viable 'out' if they would still be laying their lives down in someone/thing elses name. To have a 'belief' you have to be given something to believe in.

We cant control our own society. What arrogance is at work to think that it can be controlled elsewere. Whether the war against Iraq was called for or not, I find it naivee for people to think it was going improve by anyones standards so soon.

[minstrel]

"Don't mention the war! I did it once... I think I got away with it..."

John Cleese as Basil Fawlty
Fawlty Towers

[minstrel]

On the Google site, type in "weapons of mass destruction" and click on "I'm Feeling Lucky" and you get this page:

These Weapons of Mass Destruction cannot be displayed.

The weapons you are looking for are currently unavailable. The country might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your weapons inspectors mandate.

-----------------------------------------------------
Please try the following:

Click the Regime change button, or try again later.

If you are George Bush and typed the country's name in the address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly. (IRAQ).

To check your weapons inspector settings, click the UN menu, and then click Weapons Inspector Options. On the Security Council tab, click Consensus. The settings should match those provided by your government or NATO.

If the Security Council has enabled it, The United States of America can examine your country and automatically discover Weapons of Mass Destruction.

If you would like to use the CIA to try and discover them, click Detect weapons. Some countries require 128 thousand troops to liberate them. Click the Panic menu and then click About US foreign policy to determine what regime they will install.

If you are an Old European Country trying to protect your interests, make sure your options are left wide open as long as possible. Click the Tools menu, and then click on League of Nations. On the Advanced tab, scroll to the Head in the Sand section and check settings for your exports to Iraq.

Click the Bomb button if you are Donald Rumsfeld.

Cannot find weapons or CIA Error
Iraqi Explorer
Get the WMD 404 T-shirt.

[pete61uk]

Matauri, to a varying degree I agree with everything you said, although I purposely tried to cover most of the bases.

However, I did omit the possibility of interference from global corporations and overly interested governments. That, because so much of the worlds attention is focused in the region, and the increased probability of discovery through ever more efficient (the CIA's earlier performance notwithstanding) data-gathering techniques.

As to the controlling of societies, there has and always will be a certain amount of control or ‘social engineering’ going on. A simplistic example might be where you bought your last burger or, have you changed your brand of toothpaste at the supermarket recently?

It’s a question of scale, to be sure, but don’t think for a second it doesn’t happen. Small, accumulative changes, amount to significant change in the long run. For larger scale examples look at existing trade groups and those developing around the world, Europe, Asia, North America, etc.

As to the time element, I agree, it is naïve in the extreme to assume that the situation in Iraq was going to stabilise anytime soon. I’ve never thought any different.

Although the jury is still out, we can only hope that once the dust settles and fear subsides that all of the Iraqi people will have an equal part to play in her future and self-determination.

[mikmik]

Also something I have begun to realize is that the very values underlying their society, from what I gather through televised interviews and some past 'middle eastern' aquaintences, are at best puzzling to me. Honour and passion drive their belief system, and ideals of what constitutes right and wrong is differrent from our 'western' views.

I am myself torn over what responsibilities we carry. Surely we must protect innocent lives, and our own safety, and I have swung wildly in opinion towards the method being used. Seems that greed and power are two values shared that get in the way of rational solutions and behaviors for all concerned.

The line about knowledge having progressed wildly while our 'wisdom' has remained stagnant for thousands of years comes to mind.

[pete61uk]

Hi MikMik. Honour, as with everything connected to this situation, is one sticky aspect that can (and does) vary according to what is convenient.

Our guys, more of whom have been lost today, wear theirs in the forms of a uniform, intent, and in the transparent practice of that intent.

I've made comparisons between the present conflict and that which we (the UK) endured against the IRA before, and I really would hate for anyone to think I'm suggesting that any terrorist tactic could be considered even remotely honourable.

However, and this applies to the civilian casualties
only. At least they gave some small warning that something was going to happen, we had a chance to save lives. In Iraq we don't even get that.

The more their definition of honour differs from that of our troops, the more our guys will have to compromise on theirs. Regardless of how quantifiable the justification, that has to be soul destroying.