According to this organization which has reviewed all press reports from the recent Gulf War 2, only around 2,000 Iraqis were killed during the war. Many died from internal, iraqi-iraqi fighting.

While all civilian death and destruction is sad, this is a far cry from those who blithely and so easily claimed that tens of thousands were killed, or darkly warned of "genocide" and the annihilation of the whole Iraqi people.

Considering the fact that Saddam is responsible for hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian deaths, I find it highly inspiring that his overthrow was accomplished with so few civilian casualties - given the urban nature of the conflict and the Iraqi strategy of parking tanks next to schools and civilian homes, using hospitals as ammo dumps and crowds of refugees as human shields....

It's nearly a miracle that so few were harmed.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 25, 2003

Answers

Tell little Ali that it's a miracle so few were harmed, Joe...

'Wounded Iraqi boy Ali reaches Kuwait hospital ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

Last Updated: 2003-04-16 12:25:23 -0400 (Reuters Health)

KUWAIT (Reuters) - Doctors at a Kuwaiti hospital have begun treating an Iraqi child who touched hearts around the world after he lost his arms and most of his family during a bombing raid on Baghdad.

Ali Ismaeel Abbas was also badly burned when a missile hit his home during the U.S.-led war to topple Saddam Hussein, and doctors have warned he would die if he did not receive specialist treatment in the next few days.

A spokesman for Ibn Sina hospital in Kuwait said U.S. forces flew Ali from Baghdad to an airfield in Kuwait, where an ambulance picked him up and brought him to the hospital.

The boy, who arrived with his uncle, was in intensive care, and he was expected to undergo surgery later this week.

Nine days ago, the child haltingly told Reuters correspondent Samia Nakhoul how war had shattered his life.

Little Ali has become a cause celebre after his plight was highlighted in newspapers and on television channels around the world, sparking a flood of fundraising appeals for war victims in Iraq.

The order to treat Ali came from high up in the ministry of health, hospital director Abdullatif al-Sahli said on Tuesday. Ibn Sina, which specialises in paediatric surgery, is already treating five children wounded in the Iraqi conflict.

The missile that obliterated Ali's home also killed his father, pregnant mother, brother, aunt, three cousins and three other relatives.

"Can you help me get my arms back? Do you think the doctors can get me another pair of hands. If I don't get a pair of hands I will commit suicide," he said, with tears spilling down his cheeks and fear and pain in his eyes.

Catherine Mahoney from the British Red Cross said last week they had been inundated with calls from people wanting to donate money to Ali, adopt him or help fly him out for treatment.

But she said the image had a much wider impact than simply showing the child's personal tragedy. It had brought home the whole human cost of the war unlike any other image so far.

On the other side of the world, Maharani Gayatri Devi, wife of the former ruler of the Indian princely state of Jaipur, has said she wanted to pay for his medical treatment in Iraq or anywhere else in the world.'

Real war - real people dead and maimed.

Joe I can't believe some of the things you've written on this forum, I pray for you.

Father forgive them, they know not what they do.

-- Disgusted (saddened@humantragedy.com), April 25, 2003.

Yes, and innocent civilians died during the American Revolution. Gee. I guess this means American political theory is intrinsically evil, and nothing Americans have done since then is just in the slightest degree.

Of course, innocent civilians died during the Crusades called for by the Popes. And that means that the Church is to blame and has had - despite history - no saints or done no good things since 1095 AD.

What part of the concept of unintentional double effect don't you understand?

Pick any just war in history - every single one involved the unfortunate and sad loss of innocent civilian lives. But this doesn't mean that no such interventions were just or that military forces are intrinsically evil.

You are exchanging emotion for reason, and letting hype and spin cloud universally applicable principles.

2000 civilian deaths are tragic. But how many of those civilians were earmarked for liquidation by the Baath regime anyway?

Yet the Baath regime PURPOSELY TARGETTED CIVILIANS while the US tried to avoid them... so there is no moral equivalence.

There is a world of difference between intentional murder and unintended homicide both in Catholic moral theology and in every civil law under the sun going back to the Hammurabi code.

If you have a problem it's not with what I've said but with your feelings not corresponding to reality. A great victory has been won at surprisingly little cost to civilians, soldiers and infrastructure. Yet some can't bring themselves to give credit to those to whom its due.

You want a sob story? How about the poor Abortionist's family who lost a husband and father to a bullet? Did that make the whole Pro- life movement guilty of murder? What about the poor man who died of a heart attack during the Denver World Youth Day? A human being died who otherwise perhaps would not have... does that make the Pope and the crowd of 700,000 Catholics guilty of murder?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 25, 2003.

Even though Joe I supported the War on Iraq, the numbers sound too small. For example: how many iraqi soldiers died? How many were blown to pieces that no identification is possible?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 25, 2003.

I gotta vote with Joe on this one.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), April 25, 2003.

How can any reasonable person not side with Joe on this one? Once again...

Fact is that Saddam's thugs were intentionally targeting Iraqi civilians and attempting to pin the rap on the Coalition. Now that is truly sad and tragic, but a mere microcosm of 'the rule of law' (yes, an oxymoron) in Iraq.

Yes, any loss of life is sad and tragic. All things considered, the Coalition should indeed be commended for the painstaking effort and expense that was incurred to minimize civilian casualties.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 26, 2003.

elpidio-- death lists of citizens rarely include a listing of military personel. that number sounds right for the number of civilian deaths.

Disgusted... i suppose that those two thousand lives should have been spared right? i mean, the fact that hussein has killed an estimated 4 million during his reign doesnt really partain to whether or not the war was just. hitler killed six million in his holocaust alone... so i guess we have to wait for hussein to get that high before good people can be allowed to act right? let me give you a little statistic that might make you appreciate the number of deaths here a little more: WWII deaths- 55.9 million military dead. 12 million civilian wartime casualties, and an estimated 6-9 million jews exterminated in death camps.

i want one anti war person to tell me now where the great evil that came out of this war is? where is the mass death and extermination that we were supposedly going to commit. tell me how stopping the tyrant that was saddam was evil and i will show you a person who unknowingly serves the devil by turning a blind eye to humanity's plight.

-- paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 27, 2003.

The great evil is that the conquerors do not hold the Faith.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 27, 2003.

"the great evil is that the conquerers don't hold the Faith"??

Um, please explain what that has to do with anything please.

I mean does the Gospel NOT have preliminaries? There are many historical preconditions required for the spread of the Gospel - tranquilitas ordinis being one, which is perhaps why the Lord chose to come during the Pax Romana... not that that Peace was bloodless, as we know from St Augustine in City of God, that it was not.

In other words, in the Iraq ante bellum there was zippo chance at all for Christian charity, for most Iraqis to have first hand experience with Christians, and little chance for Americans to enter and work with Iraqis for their own common good.

Now however Americans (most of whom are military, the one segment of our population that is most disciplined and Christian), are in daily contact with Iraqis who now at least have a chance to meet them and talk with them and see Christians in action....

Oh wait...I see. Because we're not 100% perfect and saintly, because we're not walking down the street in Eucharistic processions and commanding them to repent and be baptised *(according to the Tridentine formulae of course) nothing we do is worth it.

Well, then NOTHING IS WORTH IT....or we've made as good a start as can be expected and we should be happy and grateful and pray for continued success! Hmmm is that too much to ask?

Honestly Emerald, I think your ideals or ideas of "the way things should be" are too out of wack with reality and the "way things are", especially human nature. I mean, even God does things slowly, not all at once: He didn't hand Adam and Eve the Gospel or come "walking in the garden" as the Christ in the beginning. And while missionaries come and must preach the fullness of the faith, they normally respect the pegagogical need to start off with the simple message before elaborating.

If you don't first start off with human virtue formation you won't get very far into the spiritual virtues since Grace builds on nature.

And if you first don't begin showing Muslims that Christians are men of honor, respect, charity, and mercy, you won't get very far.

Look how Christ treated the woman at the well- he didn't dump the truck load of Gospel or Catholic moral theology on her. He started first on the human level, then methodically led her to ask for living water....

So you're in a huff because the Marines aren't trained missionaries. And you're mad we haven't got the trains running on time, the streets paved with gold and paradise on earth established yet with Masses every half hour... sheesh. It took us 3 weeks to win the "quagmire" of a war. Give us another week with the new evangelization...at least!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), April 27, 2003.

Um, please explain what that has to do with anything please.

The complete sum and substance of the purpose and terminus of mankind.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 27, 2003.

"Honestly Emerald, I think your ideals or ideas of "the way things should be" are too out of wack with reality and the "way things are", especially human nature."

Exactly. That is, if you think this:

"And you're mad we haven't got the trains running on time, the streets paved with gold and paradise on earth established yet..."

But that would be contrary to anything I have ever alluded to. In fact, that's what I'm against.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 27, 2003.

Take a step backwards and lose a couple preconceptions that may or may not be influencing the way you are reading me and perhaps what I'm trying to get at.

First, I'm not a pacifist in the sense of the term as seen on TV. My favorite in my small collection is the Ruger P-38 9mm, but of course the bullseye remains the game of choice. Truth/bullseye, truth/bullseye; it's all the same to me, in principle.

My position has absolutely nothing to do with common pacifism.

Secondly, I'm not against entreprenuership. In fact, I don't think there is such a thing. What I mean is, anything other than what is commonly known as entreprenuership is a non-existant; entreprenuership is the real thing and the basis for every economy in every age in the eternal reverse. There is nothing else; it is not an American invention, we do not have a monopoly on it, and it is not a new idea. I've been there in business, and done that sort of thing as well... I'm not a rook. Yet something finer and deeper is at hand.

Here's the problem:

"And if you first don't begin showing Muslims that Christians are men of honor, respect, charity, and mercy, you won't get very far."

Hidden premise: This American nation is a Christian nation. We act in the name of God.

My objection: This is American nation is a prime chunk of missionary real estate. We act in the name of Men.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 27, 2003.

I meant Ruger P-89. My apologies, I can't believe I made that mistake... lol!

I had it temporarily confused with that fine piece of equipment, the P-38 Lightening by Lockheed, the twin-boomed fighter, topped only in prestige by the Vought F4U Corsair.

If it were for those two machines alone, I would be a Patriot; but again, something deeper and more to the essence, more elemental calls out from the mire of our existence. Tell me you don't hear it...

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 27, 2003.

Joe, I think being smug that ONLY 2000 died is the height of bad taste, and shows a lack of love for our fellow human beings. You also forgetting that the sanctions against Iraq also killed anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi's. These sanctions which the Americans/British now want to remove as soon as possible, because they are a harm to the Iraqi people. Human Rights organizations have been claiming that for years, but it was somehow acceptable to harm the Iraqi people before, with these punishing sanctions.

I guess as long as only 2000 people die, it's alright to have wars against countries? Or as long as their is a dictator in power, that we don't like, it's OK to have punishing sanctions against the people?

I like to hear how you would feel if one of your family members died in that conflict. I like to hear how smug you would be then. If this post was all about being right, you think you would show a bit more tact, about such a sensitive matter.

Funny how those in the Iraqi Army don't count. As if those defending their country deserve to die. Yup, they are not human beings. If you are drafted, and get slaughtered in the Iraqi Army that is perfectly acceptable.

If someone said that ONLY 4500 Americans died in 9.11, they crucify that person. There would be so much anger over someone saying that.

This thread has nothing to do with Catholism, and so should be deleted by the moderator.

What a sick sick post!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 27, 2003.

I must disagree that this topic has nothing to do with catholicism. How could a war not have religious and moral questions? Could it be that we count lives as if they were coins? What does it matter how many Iraqis or Marines or RAFs were killed? The fact remains that it was an altogether unjustifiable attack (One can hardly call it a war at all). Whether Saddam was a ruthless dictator really cannot be used as justification. There was never any doubt that the war would be short or that the US/UK would decimate Iraq. But might is not right. Attaking a country that is in the process (no matter how slow) of disarming is maddness. It is analogous to a scene in a western where the bandit, at gunpoint forces the victim to drop his guns and then shoots him. Let us not be blinded by the rhetoric about weapons of mass destruction. There were inspectors in Iraq so it was impossible (even if they had them) for Iraq to use them without the inspectors knowing. It is even more ridiculous to have as one's objective the overthrow of a regime that has sitting members in the UN without the support of the UN. But let us go back to the question of numbers. It was at the trial of Jesus himself that the quotation "it is better that one man be killed than that all society suffers". That thinking is frankly satanist. One cannot decide that two lives are better than one, and the catholic church does not teach such. In the matter of abortion for example, it is the church's thinking that one cannot kill the unborn child even to save the life of the mother. One must try to save both even if both should die. Does any of you doubt that had Jesus been physically present he would have been against the war? Or is it that we are so afraid to lose our place in society that we keep making excuses and bending the rules? I could recommend a book called "The Christian Mind" (I forgot the author). But in it he shows that christian consistently refuse to think along christian moral lines except on few rare usually openly religious occasions. We glibly sprout the current secular jargon that usually hides our apathy. How could we as christians give up hope so easily? For our sakes, let us get back our faith. God bless you all.

-- Angelo Fortune (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 27, 2003.

The "Noble conquerers", only kill 4000 of their own every day.

We shall now teach tne conquered how to do the same.

-- Ed Richards (loztra@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

> "We shall now teach the conquered how to do the same."

Yeah, that's sad, and one of the first things they did in Afghanistan. The pro-aborts are like some kind of ghouls, ready to swoop in.

Nice post Angelo.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

I'm sorry Gorgon, but I didn't read Joe's "original question" as smug. I read it as a timely and appropriate statement of fact that highlights a key premise advanced by much of the anti-War crowd as indeed false and grossly exaggerated.

Let's talk sanctions. They were instituted to apply pressure on Iraq to comply with the disarmament, which never took place. Why not blame Saddam Hussein for failing to disarm than attacking those that tried to hold him to this end? As for the effect of the sanctions, evidence is piling in daily on the gross abuses and circumvention of the food for oil program engaged in by Saddam and his henchmen. Again, you have misdirected the source of blame, but since you have an ax to grind with the US it is understandable why and how you continue to do as much...

Sick post? Hardly. Sick misinterpration/twisting of facts? Yes, by you Gordon, not Joe.

Angelo - what evidence/proof can you provide/reference that Iraq was in the process of disarming? How long did it take South Africa to disarm? Answer: Instantaneous! FACT is that Iraq had no intention whatsoever of disarming, and if you can somehow muster the courage to view this situation objectively, you cannot but conclude as much.

As for Christian moral justification, help me understand how it is Christian to idly stand by while an evil, Satan-filled Saddam Hussein (a) rapes, tortures, and murders his own people (b) uses weapons of mass destruction against his own people and his neighbors (c) colludes with and sponsors terrorist organizations and activities (d) actively manufactures and accumulates WMD with the clear intent (based on past actions) of using it and (e) countless other abhorring and vile activities that are riddled with evil? I submit to you that to look the other way would be giving up hope so easily. We refused to do that. We refused to behave like the French have done several times over the last hundred years - appease evil, look the other way, allow more time, make excuses, and not deal with reality.

I thank the Good Lord for courageous, wise and just leaders like George Bush and Tony Blair.

-- Bob M (itsallgood777@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.

Hi Bob, Ill try and get to your first point when I get a chance about trying to help you undertsnd Christian morality, and "satnding as you put it "idly by" not that Im the best example of it or anything but you seem confused. As for the rest of your "reasons" for war Ive pasted a counter article from "The Independant" newspaper in Britian putting your assertions at least into "context" of political reality.

b) uses weapons of mass destruction against his own people and his neighbors (c) colludes with and sponsors terrorist organizations and activities (d) actively manufactures and accumulates WMD with the clear intent (based on past actions) of using it and (e) countless other abhorring and vile activities that are riddled with evil?

Invasion based on 'distortion, lies'

28.04.2003 By RAYMOND WHITAKER in London The case for invading Iraq to remove its weapons of mass destruction was based on selective use of intelligence, exaggeration, use of sources known to be discredited and outright fabrication.

A high-level British source said yesterday that intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war with Iraq.

"They ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat," the source said.

Quoting an editorial in a Middle East newspaper which said, "Washington has to prove its case. If it does not, the world will for ever believe that it paved the road to war with lies", he added: "You can draw your own conclusions."

Since the war started there have been finds of suspected chemical weapons but they have turned out to be false alarms. The latest find was reported yesterday.

United Nations inspectors who left Iraq just before the war started were searching for four categories of weapons: nuclear, chemical, biological and missiles capable of flying beyond a range of 150km.

They found ample evidence that Iraq was not co-operating, but none to support British and US assertions that Saddam Hussein's regime posed an imminent threat to the world.

On nuclear weapons, the British Government claimed that the former regime sought uranium feed material from the Government of Niger in west Africa.

This was based on letters later described by the International Atomic Energy Agency as crude forgeries.

On chemical weapons, a CIA report on the likelihood that Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction was partially declassified.

The parts released were those which made it appear the danger was high; only after pressure from Senator Bob Graham, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was the whole report declassified, including the conclusion that the chances of Iraq using chemical weapons was "very low" for the "foreseeable future".

On biological weapons, the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the UN Security Council in February that the former regime had up to 18 mobile laboratories.

He attributed the information to "defectors" from Iraq, without saying that their claims - including one of a "secret biological laboratory beneath the Saddam Hussein hospital in central Baghdad" - had repeatedly been disproved by UN weapons inspectors.

On missiles, Iraq accepted UN demands to destroy its al-Samoud weapons, despite disputing claims that they exceeded the permitted range.

No banned Scud missiles were found before or since, but last week the British Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, said Scuds had been fired during the war. There is no proof any were, in fact, Scuds.

Some American officials have all but conceded that the weapons of mass destruction campaign was simply a means to an end - a "global show of American power and democracy", as ABC News put it. "We were not lying," it was told by one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."

US and British teams claim they are scouring Iraq in search of definitive evidence but none has so far been found, even though the sites considered most promising have been searched, and senior figures such as Tariq Aziz, the former Deputy Prime Minister, intelligence chiefs and the man believed to be in charge of Iraq's chemical weapons programme are in custody.

Robin Cook, who as British Foreign Secretary would have received high- level security briefings, said last week "it was difficult to believe that Saddam had the capacity to hit us". Cook resigned from the Government on the eve of war, but was still in the Cabinet as Leader of the House when it released highly contentious dossiers to bolster its case.

One report released last autumn by British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes, but last week Hoon said such weapons might have escaped detection because they had been dismantled and buried.

A later Downing St "intelligence" dossier was shown to have been largely plagiarised from three articles in academic publications.

"You cannot just cherry-pick evidence that suits your case and ignore the rest. It is a cardinal rule of intelligence," said one aggrieved officer. "Yet that is what the PM is doing."

Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who first pointed out Downing St's plagiarism, said ministers had claimed before the war to have information which could not be disclosed because agents in Iraq would be endangered.

"That doesn't apply any more, but they haven't come up with the evidence."

Rangwala said much of the information on weapons of mass destruction had come from Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC), which received Pentagon money for intelligence-gathering.

"The INC saw the demand, and provided what was needed," he said.

"The implication is that they polluted the whole US intelligence effort."

Facing calls for proof of their allegations, senior members of both the US and British Governments are suggesting that so-called weapons of mass destruction were destroyed after the departure of UN inspectors on the eve of war.

This in itself, however, appears to be an example of what the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix called "shaky intelligence".

An Iraqi scientist said in a note slipped to a driver in a US convoy that he had proof information was kept from the inspectors, and that officials had destroyed chemical weapons just before the war.

Other explanations for the failure to find the weapons include the possibility that they might have been smuggled to Syria, or are so well hidden that they could take months, even years, to find.

But last week it emerged that two of four American mobile teams in Iraq had been switched from looking for the weapons to other tasks.

One US official said privately that "in the end, history and the American people will judge the US not by whether its officials found canisters of poison gas or vials of some biological agent [but] by whether this war marked the beginning of the end for the terrorists who hate America".

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.

Kiwi, thanks for the cut and paste quote. It's full of holes. If you have something to say, say it. Don't let scribes do your arguing for you! (unless of course they're ecclesiastic scribes).

Others, I am not bloodthirsty! You guys were the ones who thought further sanctions were preferable to war, and yet look who's talking about the hundreds of thousands of poor Iraqis who died during the CLINTON YEARS OF EMBARGO IN WHICH SOMEHOW SADDAM'S MURDER AND STARVATION OF HIS OWN PEOPLE IS BLAMED ON THE USA!

What kind of moral theory do you use? When you say "USA" are you suggesting the government can not do anything good today because it has previously been led by scoundrels? If so, then WHAT OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH IS BETTER? If none are better, then why the sneers and jeers?

Don't you guys realise that had Bush kept the status quo, the UN "food for oil" program, totally run by the BAATH party, MORE CIVILIANS would have died than have died during the short war of liberation? After all, all those civilian deaths were the DIRECT result of Baath policies and actions! The status quo ante was more deadly than the war itself!

You'd have had 20 times the number of dead (per year!) with no liberation or stop in sight. Don't tell me I'm bloodthirsty! You people are either stupid or too emotional to think things through. (I know, there I go again, being "mean". Tell me, what's meaner? to blithely condemn a nation to slow starvation and further internal decay or to call for its liberation and then be happy when it is liberated?)

Faced with two evils: 100,000 certain civilian deaths - deaths of those people who are NOT Baathists - or 2,000 civilian deaths, all of whom were accidental and not the direct effect or goal of the coalition... which would you prefer? To choose neither is to choose the former! You can't negotiate with people like Saddam.

And yet...you don't see it. Amazing. Blindness. Don't you people ever read your old posts? Don't you recall praising the antebellum status quo "sanctions are working!" "Saddam is disarming" "He's in a box" (never mind the illegal oil pipeline to Syria, never mind the billions he was making on the black market, the illegal French and Russian weapons he was able to smuggle in, the palaces he built while the poor non-Baathists suffered....Never mind the warehouses filled with medicines while Iraqi children died of preventable diseases...the world had delivered food, Saddam kept it from being distributed - so whose to blame for civilian deaths)!

On the one side you have a regime that PURPOSELY HARMS CIVILIANS - and you guys give them a pass! On the other side you have a coalition that PURPOSELY AVOIDS CIVILIAN CASUALTIES and you whine and complain that we were'nt angelically perfect, that mistakes happened, that somehow things were better before! Amazing.

Emerald, you seem to think that unless we are all saints, our country can do nothing right. You also seem incapable of distinguishing the actions of good people from those of evil people if both are Americans.

Why Emerald, must the good be judged with the bad? Just because SOME Americans are morally depraved, does that AUTOMATICALLY make the actions of us all corrupt? Would the moral sin of the Abortionists and gays make the actions of US Marines ipso facto corrupt half a world away? If so, then according to what kind of moral theory?

You seem to operate on the principle that unless someone is perfect it really doesn't matter whether that person is a "pretty good" Catholic or a frothing at the mouth sex and drug addict who shoots children for sport and spreads internet viruses. Excuse me, but that kind of moral equivalency is stupid.

As for the P-38. Kudos. I love that airplane. It was my first model. But it wasn't perfect. In that case, it was no better than the Japanese Zero. ;-p

As for the Goal of Life. You misunderstand me. You dislike the liberation of Iraq because it was primarily political and not religious. I ask you though: how could missionaries begin to work in the Middle East without some sort of political change? And how could political change come there of its own accord?

War is not the solution - but it can be the beginning of one. War alone did not win the American Revolution or the French, or Poland's liberty. But war did do something: it gave the colonies their liberty from the crown when negotiation didn't appear to be working. It did reduce the power of the Encyclopaedists and other atheists ushing in a renaissance in France during the 1830's... it did annihilate the Nazis who otherwise would have annihilated the Poles as a race!

Now all those wars were terribly destructive to men and materials - high costs were paid. But in Iraq, the people were liberated from oppression at far less cost to life and treasure....and people STILL SNEER!

Unless men there become free to a greater degree than they are currently, missionaries are dead (literally) in the water (sand).

Was this a crusade? No. As such, it wasn't a Catholic invasion. But being a student of history, I know that good will come of this. You disagree - but offer no reason other than to sniff that it wasn't perfect or that they're not baptizing anyone yet.

Somehow I suspect that even if the Iraqis suddenly received an apparition of Our Lady of Fatima and begged to be let into the Church, you'd all STILL complain that somehow this could have been achieved with zero deaths under Saddam.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

Emerald, you seem to think that unless we are all saints, our country can do nothing right.

Of course I never said that and I don't think it either, but the statement is in fact the opposite of the one I believe you are presuming, is that when we act as a body, as a nation, that we act specifically because we have reasoned out the proper ends and means based upon moral principle. My claim is that we don't and we didn't.

This country, by reason of something flowing from its very design, is a collection of the dissimiliar; we have a very large body of people living out there existence in any number of ways in conformity or deviancy from the truth... anything and everything from Catholicism right through to hedonism. In such a society, the pinnacle of the moral principle basis, the principles which will become the substrate upon which moral-action claims are staked, can be no higher than the least common denominator. It can't be any other way.

So now check it out: our least common denominators, as a nation, from which we are able to derive any moral concensus we arrive it... the botton line principles upon which the majority of us can agree, you have to admit are pretty damn low. I mean, it is on the level of this: "Killing people is bad, and stealing too." Wow. And we can't even seem to hold to these platitudes! As such, abortion comes to be accepted in our society as a part of every day life.

So then, it's not about pefection & sainthood strawman at all; what it is about is the fact that it is not possible for us to achieve any badge of honor for acting as a nation based upon possession of proper moral principle and the resulting proper moral action, because our very design dissallows for it.

You also seem incapable of distinguishing the actions of good people from those of evil people if both are Americans.

Sure I can; that really doesn't address the core of my reluctance. Look at it this way: could we act based upon the good? Yes, however, this is not the same as to say we act based upon principle. For example, and individual may do an objective good, but this does not mean they do this good deed based on principle or that it flowed from right reasoning.

That is the sense that I would like have you parse this matter a bit further... I would like you to show me not so much that what we are doing is the right thing, but how it is that the right things we do are flowing from right principle. I'm saying that it doesn't, or more specifically, that it can't.

If it doesn't flow from principle, then the intrinsic good of our actions will be hit & miss, inconsistant, and ultimately, aimless... or at least if not aimless then resolving themselves into commonly paganistic agendas.

In order to lay claim as a nation to right action based on right principle, we actually have to agree on those principles. But as a nation, as a cacaphony of the diverse, we as a nation are in the bad habit of picking our collective moral noses when we are not thumbing our material excess at the rest of God's people on earth as proof positive of our righteousness.

Why Emerald, must the good be judged with the bad?

In not sure how this relates to the matter at hand, but since you brought it up, it is a Scriptural principle; the rain falling on the good and the bad alike, and the wheat and the tares, and so on.

Just because SOME Americans are morally depraved, does that AUTOMATICALLY make the actions of us all corrupt?

Of course not, but again, that fact in combination with our adoration of diversity of principle is inadequate to safeguard against the tendency towards corruption.

Would the moral sin of the Abortionists and gays make the actions of US Marines ipso facto corrupt half a world away?

Only in this sense: how could we argue on the one hand, that our country derives it's actions from defined moral principle abroad, when at home, the very lack of moral principle is called a legally solid right?

In other words, do we even have a true moral principle at work in our statehood from which to draw out a proper resolution in action?

So then:

If so, then according to what kind of moral theory?

Exactly my question.

You seem to operate on the principle that unless someone is perfect it really doesn't matter whether that person is a "pretty good" Catholic or a frothing at the mouth sex and drug addict who shoots children for sport and spreads internet viruses. Excuse me, but that kind of moral equivalency is stupid.

That would be stupid, I agree. Sometimes I'm stupid no doubt, but in this case fortunately that wasn't what I was getting at... lol!

As for the P-38. Kudos. I love that airplane. It was my first model. But it wasn't perfect. In that case, it was no better than the Japanese Zero. ;-p

Man, let's get ecumenical; the Zero was a awesome bird in it's own way. My dad, on one of his business trips in the late 70's, got to meet Pappy Boyington and was able to get this picture of a formation of F4-U's with Pappy's autograph. My mom glued the dang thing to a piece of cardboard with good intentions but ruined it; it's long gone. But aircraft were my first love, especially that whole WWII era. My late uncle flew the TBF, the torpedo bomber with the ball turret behind the cockpit and the bombardier up front; he had to limp the plane in with his gunner and copilot shot out, or something along those lines. I've actually got a picture of that action; I'll email it to you.

As for the Goal of Life. You misunderstand me. You dislike the liberation of Iraq because it was primarily political and not religious. I ask you though: how could missionaries begin to work in the Middle East without some sort of political change? And how could political change come there of its own accord?

I don't know.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 28, 2003.

Man, that's irritating; sorry.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 28, 2003.

Emerald, there you go again invoking the "we" for Americans.

You seem to think 270 million of "us" are a single moral person - at least that's the logical conclusion I'm drawing from your equation of Bush Administration Foreign policy and anti-Bush (and anti-Catholic) Americans who hate God and their neighbor.

In other words, why is the current American foreign policy vitiated because a couple million Americans (who have no say in said foreign policy) are personally sinful?

It might work if we were the People of God, Israel, so that the actions of some of us somehow made all of us guilty. But you're the first to say that America is neither the People of God nor the New Israel. "We" are just people within a geographical extension, sharing some values and neutral political systems. "We" aren't totally united as a people - but that doesn't mean that everything one American stands for is some other American's moral position or moral fault!

Are the few Iraqi Catholics directly to blame for Saddam's crimes?

Where the Christian Cambodians directly to blame for Pol Pot?

In short, you are judging as morally equivalent separate moral persons and actors - and that's not fair.

It seems that since you can't really find fault with the war in Iraq, you have to look to Americans who had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR, but who are sinful, and say "Ha! they're evil, and they're Americans, so other Americans no matter what they do, are evil too!"

The democrats are - as a political party, 100% in favor of abortion and a plethora of other sexual deviancies. The republicans as a political party are divided to be sure, but generally are not 100% in favor of the above sins.... so do you mean to say they are practically the moral equivalent of each other because both are Americans?

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

Consider this. In Jesus' time, there was tyrany. the Romans were cruel bastards as ever. Can we therefore accuse Jesus of turning a blind eye to it all because he did not get up on a political platform? Can we therefore say he was not a peacemaker because he did nothing to solve the social injustice of the time?

Be serious, war may change the status quo, it may bring "democracy" but it certainly does not heal souls. It does the opposite. It breeds hatred and distrust. "What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul"?

I know we all think that USA helps the poor so much etc. But think of the parable of the widow's mite. Jesus made it very clear that it is not how much you give that matters but the love and sacrifice one endures in the giving.

USA ranks LAST in western countries in the amount it assists developing countries on a percentage of GNP Denmark---1.03% Norway----1.01% Sweden----0.98% Netherlands--0.82% France----0.63% Finland---0.46% Canada----0.45% Germany---0.37% UK--------0.31% NewZealand--0.25% USA-------0.15%

Let us show how much we care by giving more instead of trying to remake other societies in our own image and likeness.

God Bless

-- Angelo (anglead56@hotmail.com), April 28, 2003.

"It's nearly a miracle that so few were harmed"

is this what miracles now boil down to?

Yes, it is good that 2,000 rather than 20,000 or 200,000 were killed but every 1 of the 2,000 was someone's son or daughter, and perhaps someone's father/mother/wife/etc.

i find this thread in extreme, insensitive bad taste. it is not worthy of the name "Catholic".

we should be saddened that so many have died.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 28, 2003.

I wonder who gives more to the Poor by actual number rather than percentage points? I wonder - can we count the military umbrella expenses we make so that others don't have to defend themselves? Can we throw in private charity or are we talking only US government money transfer? Are we counting the $100 million worth of grain and other humanitarian items given through Catholic Charities?

What about our economy which provides foreign immigrants with jobs and income which they then ship home? Wouldn't that count for something? After all, without us these workers would not have funds to remit to their families....

How many 3rd world poor are clamoring to get into Denmark? How many do they let in?

I agree that 1 human casualty is terrible. But should we not rejoice that while everyone who called themselves "sophisticated", "cultured" and "knowledgable" feared hundreds of thousands of deaths, in reality only 2000 died?

Shouldn't we be happy that so few perished when more civilians died in France on D-Day than in Iraq in 3 weeks of liberation?

Shouldn't we be happy that our modern weaponry and excellent military was able to spare so many lives when on paper at least we could have easily wiped out millions?

Shouldn't we be happy and proud that our forces were so disciplined that they were'nt the ones looting, they weren't the ones directly targetting civilians, and they weren't the one's who hid behind civilians while shooting?

In short, while the war removed a tyranny and tyrants, and now a long road of reconstruction and rebirth is underway, shouldn't we be thankful to God and to our forces that death and destruction was a lot less than everyone - Arab, European, and Democrats alike feared (or secretly hoped for)?

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

Joe

i agree with you, most of all that - yes - we should be truly grateful that the deaths were 2,000, not 20,000 or more.

my point is this: i believe that this thread lacks taste. maybe it is not the intention, but it appears to make capital from the death of 2,000 human beings. they were human beings Joe.

i think it is the juxta-position of "only" AND "around 2,000" that makes this point clear.

i do not doubt that you have prayed and prayed for these poor souls - that is not in question.

it is the bad taste of this thread that i regret. i think it is ill- judged.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 28, 2003.

PS Angelo, even in actual figures rather than percentages of GDP, Japan has historically been the best "giver". in recent times, its economy has contracted (deflation) and its hicurrency (Yen) has suffered accordingly; but they are better givers than the US in absolute terms.

but i think that Joe has some point when he mentions "other forms" of foreign aid.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 28, 2003.

there is most likely a direct correlation between tax rates and the amount of money that a government will devote from the public purse to foreign aid; and a inverse correlation between the amount of money that the nation in question will donate through, for example, Catholic foreign aid agencies.

i have tried to find a study on the net that is germane, but have so far failed; but i firmly believe that this conjecture should hold water.

the US government is quite mean, but its people are probably (if i am right) very generous.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), April 28, 2003.

> "Don't you guys realise that had Bush kept the status quo, the UN "food for oil" program, totally run by the BAATH party,"

This is absurd! Limits set by the WEST, and not by the Baath party. They responsible for distributing the food, which was inadequate to feed all the Iraqi people. How can they be faulted for the not enough food being given to feed their own people?

> "You people are either stupid or too emotional to think things through."

After reading that, I see no point in reading whatever else you have to say. I mean you are the STUPID one for failing to see the obvious.

If insults are going to be the order of the day, then everything that comes out your mouth is incredibly stupid! You are an overly emotional western sap, who is sucker for so much outragious propaganda.

You stupid stupid stupid person!

Great discussion! Now why do I get the feeling people are going to start labeling me the bad person in all of this, and yet all I am doing is following your example.

Joe who is stupid! Don't listen to him, because he is stupid!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

The point I am trying to make Joe, is that you should not insult people who disagree with you, but you should try to convince them you are right with persuasive arguments. Once you start slinging insults, it turns into a free for all, where no one is going to be convinced of anything, and we all become guilty of lack of charity of our neighbour.

This whole war issue really brings out the worst in people. The anger that is present on the side, that feels war is justified is scary! I guess you have to have strong feelings over this issue, if you are prepared to kill others for it, and you have to be prepared for that, as you cannot expect others to do you dirty work. If you support this war, then you have to support going in and killing people yourself.

You think that with such a serious issue as killing others, you would have to be sooooo sure that you are right, cause if you are not, then you will answer to God for killing others unjustly.

War was not the answer to this issue, and to promote this war is an immoral act in my eyes.

Killing innocents to get at those who are guilty of crimes against humanity, is equavalant to killing Christ, as the whole point of his death, was to kill one to save the many. Those killing him, felt justified in killing him.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), April 28, 2003.

Reuters News Agency –– Casualty Figures, April 24, 2003-04-26 (35 days of war)

COMBAT

United States - Combat: killed –– 111, wounded –– 495, missing - 1 Britain - Combat: killed –– 8, wounded –– 74, missing - 0 Iraq - Combat: killed - 2320 (figures represent fighting in Baghdad area only, no other figures available)

NON-COMBAT &/or CIVILIAN

United States: killed –– 21, wounded - 66 Britain: killed - 24 Iraq: killed –– 1254, wounded - 5112

TOTALS

Killed –– 3738, Wounded –– 5747, Missing –– 1

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION LOCATED AND DESTROYED - 0

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 28, 2003.

If only Bagadad is included, and this adds to close to 10,000 casualties:dead, wounded, and missing, then total should be at least twice this amount since the strongest, fiercest fighting was isn Basra, Nasiriyah, Karbala...

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), April 29, 2003.

Jmj

Ed L, I am not interested in getting into another argument about the Coalition's justification (or lack thereof) for entering into conflict. I've had more than plenty of that [thank you] on other threads. The only thing I want to do here is comment on what you made a sort of dramatic/climactic, final item in your last message:

"WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION LOCATED AND DESTROYED -- 0"

Ed, I can understand how you would be able to post such a foolish line of "data" only if you don't pay much attention to the detailed news -- or if you pay a lot of attention, but only to some kind of incompetent and anti-U.S. news source.

That quotation is misleading at best and deliberately false at worst. Rather than end the line with the number "0", the word "unknown" should appear [for reasons I will explain in a moment]. What your pathetic source of info leaves out are such facts and theories as the following, which MUST be taken into consideration by fair-minded people:
(1) Numerous samples of suspected WMD finds are already being tested at various foreign labs. No one can predict how many positives, if any, there will be.
(2) Several captured or surrendered Iraqi leaders have already admitted that S. Hussein ordered all WMD to be destroyed in the last two weeks before the day of the first attack. It follows that it will be difficult, perhaps impossible, to find bigtime amounts of WMD.
(3) Just before hostilities started, an Iraqi scientist, now in Coalition hands, intentionally buried some of the raw materials of WMD, so that he could try to prove that a WMD program existed.
(4) Through covert intelligence-gathering, defectors, etc., overwhelming evidence of the existence of WMD in Iraq was obtained long before hostilities began. The weapons were successfully hidden from U.N. inspectors, and now, if not destroyed, they may have been moved into Syria, private homes, etc..
(5) No one knows how many WMD were destroyed by Coalition bombing.
(6) Iraq is roughly the size of California. Think about how easy it is to find hidden stuff in a place that size, even with thousands of military personnel at work. As Secy. Rumsfeld stated, just as the UN inspectors could hardly find anything (even though it existed), so the military searchers are having the same kind of expected difficulty.
(7) Instead of expecting dramatic discoveries, what is expected is that regime leaders will "cough up" the info they are hiding. It's only a matter of time before they are forthcoming. They will divulge facts under truth serum, via lie detector tests, or when they are sick of the deprivations involved in captivity.

Now regardless of how much credence a person gives to any of the points between 1 and 7, he/she will -- if honest and honorable -- realize that the quoted line [all that upper-case shouting with the goose-egg on the end] was a misleading or dishonest hunk of propaganda.

Last but not least ... It matters not a whit to me if not a single remaining WMD is found. Iraq had WMD in the 1980s and 1990s (and even used 'em). Iraq's insane leaders had the ability and will to make 'em again, to use 'em themselves, to sell 'em, or to give 'em to terrorists to use on the civilized world. The very threat and capability itself had to be destroyed.

This was not "The War on Iraq." This was only the latest in a long series of battles in an eminently just "The War on Terror." Might as well get used to it.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 30, 2003.

John, you wrote,

“It matters not a whit to me if not a single remaining WMD is found.”

Finally we agree on something!!! Alleluia! The United States could beg forgiveness from the world and allow the U.N.-sanctioned weapons inspectors back into Iraq; they could find millions of WMDs and it wouldn’t change the fact that based on the way in which this war came about the United States and its coalition partners acted immorally in waging war on Iraq. They lied to the world!

You claim this to be the “ latest in a long series of battles in an eminently just "The War on Terror." That’s what’s got me worried John! In order of importance (the United States Hit List) Syria, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Philippines, and to a lesser degree, 53 other countries have harboured terrorists or supported them in some way or pose a threat with weapons of mass destruction. Who will be next and what will the criteria be for annihilating them? The world needs some sort of body to hold all countries accountable who claim to be ridding the world of danger through “just war”!. If the United States are not held accountable morally for its actions, history has shown that things can quickly get out control.

George Bush has lied to the United Nations in stating through envoy - Secretary of State Colin Powell, that Iraq was only five months away from nuclear capability. (Whoops! I forgot, you don’t believe that when an envoy speaks for someone, he is actually speaking for them). Hans Blix quickly proved that Powell’s claim was fictitious and based on forged documents. Imagine, Blix and his inspectors couldn’t do the job in Iraq to Bush’s satisfaction and yet, they can expose these forged documents for what they really are - bogus propaganda. It is inconceivable that the United States and all its intelligence resources couldn’t discern this, don’t you think?. Isn’t something starting to smell?

The first act out of the box after war was declared on Iraq for the United States, was to veto a resolution to send United Nations troops to the Ivory Coast to quell a civil war and instill peace to a nation that is slaughtering itself. This seems like a rather strange turn of events for a country who has declared that its new world mission is to free all peoples of the world from tyranny and persecution and the sooner the better!

-- Ed (catholic444@yahoo.ca), May 01, 2003.

Sorry, the above post didn't copy in its entirety. Can the moderator please remove along with this post and I will re-post. Thanks.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 01, 2003.

John in commenting on your post,

1.) I guess it takes time to analyse fertiliser when the entire world is looking over your shoulder. 2.) Yes, and several scientist have surrendered and stated there were no WMDs. John, think about it! The United States went to war based on proof they said they had. Of course this proof was too sensitive to share with the rest of the world. Now the U.S. troops are canvassing the streets of Baghdad and handing out leaflets, asking every Tom, Dick and Harry, whoops, sorry; every Abdullah, Mohammed and Mustafa, if they know where they can find any WMDs. How pathetic! 3.) Haven’t a clue what you are talking about here. 4.) “Overwhelming evidence” - overwhelming alright! It’s been 4 weeks now and the Pentagon has resorted to a “door-to-door” campaign in a desperate attempt to legitimise their actions. 5.) Give me a break! Do you not think the fall-out from such explosions would not be detectable? 6.) They’re having difficulty alright, buy why? Didn’t the Pentagon have the coordinates to the locations of the WMDs - after all, that’s why they declared war on Iraq in the first place wasn’t it? They said they had proof positive that Iraq had WMDs. It is clear to all that even if any WMD are found the United States immorally declared war on a nation based on the lie that it maintained it had this non-existent proof. 7.) So, we’ve gone from “dramatic discoveries” to “coughing up”, have we? How long does it take for truth serum to work? Does it take longer than 4 weeks John?

John, you wrote,

“It matters not a whit to me if not a single remaining WMD is found.”

Finally we agree on something!!! Alleluia! The United States could beg forgiveness from the world and allow the U.N.-sanctioned weapons inspectors back into Iraq; they could find millions of WMDs and it wouldn’t change the fact that based on the way in which this war came about the United States and its coalition partners acted immorally in waging war on Iraq. They lied to the world!

You claim this to be the “ latest in a long series of battles in an eminently just "The War on Terror." That’s what’s got me worried John! In order of importance (the United States Hit List) Syria, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Philippines, and to a lesser degree, 53 other countries have harboured terrorists or supported them in some way or pose a threat with weapons of mass destruction. Who will be next and what will the criteria be for annihilating them? The world needs some sort of body to hold all countries accountable who claim to be ridding the world of danger through “just war”!. If the United States are not held accountable morally for its actions, history has shown that things can quickly get out control.

George Bush has lied to the United Nations in stating through envoy - Secretary of State Colin Powell, that Iraq was only five months away from nuclear capability. (Whoops! I forgot, you don’t believe that when an envoy speaks for someone, he is actually speaking for them). Hans Blix quickly proved that Powell’s claim was fictitious and based on forged documents. Imagine, Blix and his inspectors couldn’t do the job in Iraq to Bush’s satisfaction and yet, they can expose these forged documents for what they really are - bogus propaganda. It is inconceivable that the United States and all its intelligence resources couldn’t discern this, don’t you think?. Isn’t something starting to smell?

The first act out of the box after war was declared on Iraq for the United States, was to veto a resolution to send United Nations troops to the Ivory Coast to quell a civil war and instill peace to a nation that is slaughtering itself. This seems like a rather strange turn of events for a country who has declared that its new world mission is to free all peoples of the world from tyranny and persecution and the sooner the better!

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 01, 2003.

Ed L, your comments are noted ... and rejected!

I am simply flabbergasted that your great intelligence, which has produced so many good forum messages about our faith, is utterly incapable of accurately analyzing the facts related a matter of current events. Your statements, above and on other threads, are just littered with factual errors, half-truths, illogicalities, misunderstandings of the roles of church and state, etc., etc.. The end result of reading your messages is, for me, no enjoyment and no intellectual stimulation to carry on.

Therefore, I will have to stop discussing the subject of the Battle of Iraq and the War on Terror with you. It just costs too much of my time to explain how almost every one of your points, in every one of your messages, is wrong. I wouldn't mind spending the time for someone who is willing to read and learn from what I write, but instead of learning, you come back with another barrage of "duds" that are worse than the previous batch. To illustrate very briefly, in closing, I will quote from you:

"This [veto of a resolution] seems like a rather strange turn of events for a country who has declared that its new world mission is to free all peoples of the world from tyranny and persecution and the sooner the better!"

The U.S. never "declared" such a thing, Ed. If you can't even get this right, how can you get much more complex things right?

I wish you enjoyment of your future debates with other people here -- if you really are so addicted that you cannot give up on your hopeless cause.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 02, 2003.

You think to be a harm to your neighbours, not only would you need WMD, but you would need them in sufficient quantities. If you don't have sufficient quantities, then you are not a harm to your neighbour. If sufficient quantities existed, they could easily be found.

Americans cannot even find one single SCUD missle!!! I guess they are hiding those in people's homes. Snicker.

The Americans justified this war on the grounds of WMD, and now they can't find any, and we get a bunch of excuses instead. Is this some of kind of comedy???

> "or if you pay a lot of attention, but only to some kind of incompetent and anti-U.S. news source."

John get off thinking that everyone who opposes the war is Anti-American, or stupid. I know we cannot all be as intelligent as you on this matter, or as American as you, but just consider that people opposed the war, cause they actually believed it was wrong. I doubt you believe the Pope is anti-American, or the 20 percent of Americans against this war were anti-American.

Yes, me being Canadian, and not American, makes it very easy for you to say, I am anti-American, as you claimed in another post. I obviously have no defense against this, as I am not American. What wonderful logic!

You feel this war was so just, that you would have went in, and killed those civilians that died there? Or do you expect others to do your dirty work for you? How about Iraqi soldiers defending their country, who were drafted in Saddam's army, are they expendable at your hands?

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

Gordon, I would not shoot any innocent person. But I just might shoot a Fedeyin radical nut who's hiding behind women and children and shooting back at me.

Or do you equate murderers like those terrorists with Christ too?

-- joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

> "Or do you equate murderers like those terrorists with Christ too?"

Huh? Not sure what you mean. I understand there is justification for taking other lives in defence of one's self, of self defence of one's country, but we are talking about America/Britain being the aggressor here. I find that scary, considering that America being the most powerfullest country on Earth should be setting a good example for other countries.

Saddam was not being the aggressor here, and Saddam clearly did not have WMD in sufficient quanties to do any serious harm to his neighbours. That was the reason of going to war against him!!!

Note: I am glad that Saddam is out of power, but I still disagree with what the Americans/British did, as they did not have justification for this war, and the whole WMD excuse is looking to be the farce it was all along.

The American and British adminstrations were lying all along, and the proof is in the fact they cannot find any WMD in sufficient quantities to show that Saddam was a potential harm to his neighbours.

All I hear is a bunch of excuses, but that's all you guys have. You don't have any WMD to show do you?

Anyway the Americans should know that Saddam had WMD, as they have all the receipts. :)

Now they are in Syria, and so let's take over that country, and next they are where? They been moved to Iran, so let's take over that country, and so on. It would be quite the comedy, if so many innocent lives were not at stake.

Why do the Americans/British need any justification for taking over these countries? I mean, just take them over. You don't have to lie to do it!

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), May 02, 2003.

>Americans cannot even find one single SCUD missle!!! I guess they are hiding those in people's homes.

No no no Gordon. Apparently Saddam gave them all to Osama. (Ho Ho Ho.)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 03, 2003.

"But I just might shoot a Fedeyin radical nut who's hiding behind women and children and shooting back at me."

What the... ohhhh wait a minute.

Man, you freaked me out a little there...

Thought you said Feenyite.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 03, 2003.

So, if we don't find WMD's, should we apologize, find Saddam, and hand the country back to him?

Get a grip, you pro-Ba'athist anti-USA folks.

You lost, and the Iraqi people won.

-- Frank G (gigerfr@bellsouth.net), May 03, 2003.

Jmj

Come on, Gordon. Don't get silly on me again. I hope you aren't some kind of masochist like KeyWee usually seems to be?
Recall that one of the "just war" principles is that you can't enter into a war if you don't have reasonable expectation of success. That ought to tell you (and Kiwi and Ed L, et al.) that you shouldn't enter into conflict with Joe Stong and me (and others), because you can have no expectation of success at all!!! You guys just don't have the firepower (facts, ability to argue logically, etc.). I'll demonstrate ...

QUOTE: Americans cannot even find one single SCUD missle!!! I guess they are hiding those in people's homes. Snicker.

COMMENT: This is an example of your lacking the facts. Early in the conflict, missiles with illegal ranges were found and shown. Then missiles with special heads designed to carry chemicals were found and shown. This stuff was all over TV. Were you asleep or watching "Sesame Street"?

QUOTE: The Americans justified this war on the grounds of WMD, and now they can't find any, and we get a bunch of excuses instead. Is this some of kind of comedy???

COMMENT: If there were any "comedy" involved here, I assure you that we would be laughing at you.
Please stop referring to "the Americans," as though this were something unilateral. We are talking here about a Coalition of 50 nations -- the TRUE, courageous "United Nations" (not the gutless, effeminate, pusillanimous Axis of Weasels that some seem to idolize).

The Coalition did not "justify" what they did "on the grounds of WMD."
How many times do I have to remind you and your axis what President Bush stated on September 20, 2001 -- nine days after the quasi-nation named "Terror" formally declared war on the "Civilization" (after having been "de facto" at war against civilized mankind since 1969)?
The president, on that date, explained that we were entering into a War on Terror (not on Afghanistan or on Iraq or on Al Qaeda -- but on "Terror"). So WMD is just something secondary as it relates to Iraq. The primary thing has always been that Iraq has been, for more than 20 years, on the U.S. list of nations that support Terror (terrorist organizations). Iraq once was known to possess vast amounts of WMD, making it unlikely that they had all been destroyed. Iraq had an insane dictator who supported terrorists -- a guy who would start producing WMD again, even if he did destroy them at some point. Iraq still had WMD in 2002, according to many intelligence sources and defectors. All of that had to end, and it has.

QUOTE: You feel this war was so just, that you would have went in, and killed those civilians that died there? Or do you expect others to do your dirty work for you? How about Iraqi soldiers defending their country, who were drafted in Saddam's army, are they expendable at your hands?

COMMENT: This is an example of the other shortage of weapons in your arsenal -- no ability to argue logically. The fact that a person holds the war to be "just" does not imply that the person is happy about the death of a civilian. With your illogicality, NO war is ever just, since every war results in some accidental civilian deaths.
Next ... I am never happy at the unnatural loss of a human life, so please don't give me that stuff about Iraqi draftees being "expendable." Those soldiers who did not support S. Hussein had the choices to surrender, to die, or to desert. Those who chose unwisely stayed and died (or were murdered by their officers). Their blood is on S. Hussein's hands, as is (ultimately) the blood of every single person who died in this conflict, on both sides.

QUOTE: I understand there is justification for taking other lives in defence of one's self, of self defence of one's country, but we are talking about America/Britain being the aggressor here.

COMMENT: You said this out of ignorance, Gordon. Now that I have reminded you that we are in the early stages of the War on Terror, in which the terrorists and the nations that support them have been the agressors for over 30 years -- while the Coalition of 50 are the "self-defenders" (and even the defenders of your lily-livered land and the rest of civilization) -- maybe you and KeyWee et al will understand the basic vacuousness of your position.

QUOTE: ... America being the most powerfullest [sic] country on Earth should be setting a good example for other countries.

COMMENT: Along with the rest of the Coalition, America did set an outstanding example for the weak-kneed nations. Maybe in the future, they will show some guts too -- as they did in World War II, when they raised real men, instead of mice.

QUOTE: Saddam was not being the aggressor here, and Saddam clearly did not have WMD in sufficient quanties to do any serious harm to his neighbours. That was the reason of going to war against him!!!

COMMENT: As I explained above, this is incorrect. He was "being [an] aggressor" by being a sponsor of Terror. (If you don't know that to be a fact, you don't read enough.) You cannot say that "Saddam clearly did not have WMD [etc.]," because you have no idea whether that is correct or not. By saying something like that prematurely, you are acting like a very young, impatient liberal (in order words, like a KeyWee). You have told me that you are very conservative, so you need to prove it by patience, gathering facts, and thinking logically. I'm sad to say that I haven't seen any of those qualities from you yet.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 04, 2003.

I’ve often wondered how, in the years leading up too and during WWII, millions of ordinary, everyday people in Germany were coerced into becoming ‘good’ citizens [Good Nazi citizens]. After all, they were not evil, they were just like you and I, yet so many of them were fooled into supported the Nazi notion of aggressive war. So many believed the lies and propaganda reported to them by ‘authoritive’ sources. So many believed they were right to launch pre-emptive strikes against other countries to alleviate any future or potential threat to Germany.

Sound familiar? It should… The Nuremberg trials concluded that the Nazis were guilty of the crime of “waging aggressive war” when they carried out their 'preemptive' strikes on of Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.

It seems that many people, American, British, Australian & others are falling victim to the same methods and ideas that worked so well for the Nazis in convincing a population that otherwise horrendous actions are somehow justified. It’s hard to believe but it’s obviously true, just look at what some of the so-called ‘Christian’ people have posted here in this discussion. What is the world coming to when Christian people can be convinced to publicly proclaim the doctrine of preemptive attack- in other words, war initiated for aggressive purposes, with barely a pretense of self-defense? With the invasion of Iraq, Our ‘so-called’ leaders have committed the principal crime for which leaders of Nazi Germany and imperial Japan were placed on trial after World War II, convicted and executed. Yes it is a very confronting thought isn’t it? This might explain why the US embarked on a strident campaign to exempt American military and foreign policy personnel from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. I can imagine the Nazis would have done a similar thing if they were in the same position as America is now. It seems the term ‘war crime’ applies only to those who do not have a great big nuclear arsenal from which to dictate an extremely devastating and aggressive foreign policy without much care for justification or recourse. As for the title of this discussion “Another myth disproven: no enormous loss of Iraqi life.” Firstly this statement doesn’t discount Iraqi military personnel however even if it was meant to only include civilian life it is still at best misleading and at worst a really sick lie. I wonder how you would feel if your country was invaded and your life didn’t rate a mention because you decided to fight to protect yourself, your family, your home and country. I’m sorry but you were not classed as a ‘non-combatant’ how dare you try to resist us. Ok so lets just look at the non-combatants then, I still find it so incredible that thousands of people can be murdered and because it wasn’t millions we are supposed to feel good and accept that it justifies continuing an illegal war. A lower than expected body count is not a justification for the killing? If you really want to start counting bodies in Iraq then why not get serious and include all the casualties from all the aggression against Iraq by the US & Co. Why not count the thousands of children who died each month as a direct result of UN sanctions where the US and Britain blocked essential food and medical supplies that where payed for by Iraq with UN approval. [ironically they want to look good now by supplying food and aid. When they already owe something in the order of 22billion dollars worth that have been paid for but held back from the Iraqi people] Why not count the casualties from continual bombing of civilian infrastructure both during and ever since the last gulf war. Why not count the deaths from exposure to radiation caused by the poisoning of vast areas of the country with the immoral use of depleted uranium rounds, which have spelled doom for hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Depleted uranium is a weapon that keeps on killing and will continue to kill for generations to come in Iraq and other misfortunate places. I guess the body count is hard to figure out when you realise that it is just going to keep increasing forever, eventually we might be measuring it in millions. I suppose it doesn’t matter about the truth all the really ‘good’ little Nazis (for want of a better word) will find a way to justify anything.

Col

-- Col (ceg@winningteam.com), May 15, 2003.

Why did the US declare war on Germany in 1941? After all, Germany had not threatened the US mainland? For that matter, what justification did we have invading Italy? The fascists never attacked the USA. And appart from Pearl Harbor (which was a naval base, and the Philippines which wasn't US territory either), why were we just in going to war with Japan in 1941? After all, the Japanese were no REAL threat to the US mainland...

As for your loose allusions to the US being fascist or Socialist (yes, the Nazis were Leftists, not rightists), you affirmation without evidence proves nothing.

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), May 15, 2003.

Joe,

I think you’re missing the point of what I was saying. I don’t care what label you care to put on things, it doesn’t matter if you consider the Nazis ‘leftists’ and yourself or the current warmongers as ‘rightists’. The methods of persuasion used to influence the population to believe that killing people is just and righteous obviously work just as effectively for each group. I was using the Nazi example because the final outcome is similar if not the same. It doesn’t mean the people who want to coerce us into believing mass murder is justified are actual Nazis, but what they are doing is no less horrendous, it is no less damaging to humanity. Really labelling yourself as ‘rightist’ doesn’t make murder ‘right’. I see it as just an attempt to argue over petty details to overt attention from the real issues.

Your questions asking why the US declared war in 1941 and why they fought the Japanese etc seems to be an attempt to draw parallels to the war on Iraq? I would have thought the differences would be obvious enough to be self-evident, however there certainly are some parallels to be noted. The reason for the US declaring war against Germany in 1941 is the same reason the US has become involved in all the wars that they have decided to enter into ever since. I doubt you would want to acknowledge to truth of it though. The US enters wars for what it can get out of them, No perceived/potential profit or gain = No US involvement in war, which translates in some cases to no war at all. Unfortunately human life is rarely factored into the equation.

Please don’t get me wrong here… when I say “US” I am only referring to the few who control the policy and direction of the US machine. I am not referring to the vast majority of American people, even if some of them are unwitting supporters and propagators of malevolence. I’m not anti-American, far from it… however surly the current US rule is about as anti-American as it could possibly get. No longer does it hold to the principles that founded the nation. The once treasured ideal of justice, freedom and liberty are now a cruel joke. Sure, those words among others, are still used to make the appalling sound honourable and many people who don’t want to look behind that thin veil of deceit may still find comfort in them. So many still seem think it is unpatriotic to question or to think, even to the point where things that are totally against their beliefs can be excused or justified, no matter how obvious the foundation of lies is. The way I see it real patriots stands up for the truth, they uphold the morals and the principles that are (or were) the true America. These values are all but lost to time…

America was founded upon Christian values, principles that were once the envy of the world, but no longer do they have real meaning. They have been corrupted beyond recognition... It’s a sad, sad situation because not only does it drag the American people down but also the rest of the world. A world where many once looked to the US with hope for the future. The US now incites feelings of dread, fear and yes even terror for much of the worlds population, even people who would consider themselves allies are aware of the ever increasing menace to freedom, liberty and justice that the US now presents.

Col

-- Col (ceg@winningteam.com), May 16, 2003.

Oh come on, you're claiming that the current administration is WORSE than the previous one?!

How so? Because we are defending ourselves against terrorists who SPECIFICALLY TARGET CIVILIANS?

What don't you understand about stem cell research and human cloning? What don't you understand about abortion and the need to appoint better judges? What don't you understand about faith-based initiatives? What don't you understand about reforming education, promoting vouchers, and having an administration formed of practicing Catholics and Christians rather than agnostic homosexuals or their promiscuous heterosexual counterparts?

This administration has been more pro-Catholic than ANY prior one. And it has done more to stop terror and change the geo-political security of the USA (which just so happens to be the place of choice for people to emmigrate to from everywhere else).

You're anti-war mongering is blinding you to all the vast differences for the better between Bush and Clinton!

I for one am very happy to see that the Vatican has not continued to issue statements "against" the US and for "the status quo". If what the US did was immoral as you suggest then why isn't the Church and Pope thundering condemnations? hmmmmmm?

Because the supposed "reasons" for the Pope and Vatican to opt for further UN operations rather than US invasion was based on FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN - fear of "clash of civilizations", fear of instant and widespread Muslim atrocities against minority Christian populations, fear of World War 3, of the use of WMD including tactical nukes and fear of the US carpet bombing cities, killing thousands of civilians "just because". They feared the torching of oil wells and ensuing ecological disaster. They feared starvation and widespread civilian displacements... in short, according to their pre- suppositions and the relatively little inside information they received, they ASSUMED THE WAR WOULD VIOLATE 2-3 OF THE JUST WAR CRITERIA.

But history has shown that not only did the US NOT INTEND TO VIOLATE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH'S JUST WAR CRITERIA, it also did not in actu actually breech those criteria.

So now you can hear crickets in the halls of the Holy See. No body wants to look stupid.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 16, 2003.

Joe, back then when you wrote this thread everything seemed to go right for the uUnited States.

I myself was in favor of the war.

I e-mailed the President 3 times about putting an Iraqi in charge of running the country. Unfortunately he didn't'. This was on Feb. 10 before the War and on march 27, at the beginning of the War.

After may first when the USA declared the War over more soldiers have died than those that died during the war.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 13, 2003.

Yes, more soldiers have died...in Kosovo too, but since when have we heard anything about THAT DEPLOYMENT? So far NATO and Russian troops are STILL THERE, and no one is having a cow about turning the situation over to the Kosovarans!

We have "peacekeepers" in other parts of the world too - and no cries are being raised to heaven to "bring the boys home". Odd isn't it?

Regarding casualties... yes, 300 some battle deaths are tragic. But far more Americans get killed every day because of freak accidents than because of Iraqi terrorists! Far more die in traffic accidents every weekend that the US has lost in Afganistan and Iraq combined!

So let's have some perspective. The US fought and won a war against one of the most heavily armed Arab nations in the world, with a total lost of only about 120 people initially. Now we're 5 months into reconstruction, have yet to capture Saddam Hussein and kill or capture all his henchmen, but have restored power, economy, and a semblance of order to a country at a quicker rate than was the case in post-war Germany or Japan. (Which are the only other US occupations to compare this with.)

Unlike Saddam and the French and everyone else, we the United States have both apologized and paid people for war damages - and continue to spend OUR MONEY to rebuild a Moslem country while 58 other Moslem nations can't even agree to praise the new Iraqi delegation for getting rid of Saddam much less agree to send money and aid!

So much for the anti-US forces both foreign and domestic! THEY won't lift a finger to help either the Afganis or the Iraqi people, but will spend alot of energy complaining about whomever does try to help them.

Some people just refuse to accept that they were wrong and so get all wrapped up in high dungeon with demands that the US perform miracles everywhere we go - and even when we do achieve minor miracles the cry is "yeah but it's not quick enough!"

I'd like to hear any one else come up with a better plan... besides "whatever you're doing is a disaster so stop it".

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 15, 2003.

Most news junkies will note that most of our casualties are soldiers whose HUMVEES are hit by RPGs or who roll over land mines in these trucks...

An interesting development has just taken place with this in mind in the UK. A British defense firm has developed a light-weight armour system which runs high voltage through a layer of metal alloy behind a bulletproof sheath of armor. Once the shaped charge warhead of your standard RPG (mass produced by the USSR and currently the weaon of choice of terrorists), slams into this outerlayer, its shaped charge expels a jet of hot copper towards the vehicle at high speed - but once the copper hits the electrified inner skin it's vaporized by the voltage... thus dissipating the blast.

According to tests, a single vehicle with this armour can sustain repeated hits without interior damage.

Still a year or two away from active deployment, I think this armour will render obsolete the ubiquitous RPG and make US soldiers that much more safe.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 15, 2003.

Well Joe, I do agree with one point that you made… The number of US soldiers killed since the supposed ‘end of the war’ probably isn’t (on it’s own) a reason to refute the war as a whole. You are right there are plenty of people dieing all over the world for lots of different reasons (not just Americans – even though it seems US casualties are all that many worry about)… I must say that I fail to see where that fact makes it preferable to just keep adding more and more kills to the list but I doubt it would help to argue this point with you.

I had heard of government agents attempting to inundate discussions such as these with pro government propaganda. I had wondered how you could possibly hold the views you have in light of the facts, however was willing (in this case) to simply let the matter rest. After all, the government and the media was doing a pretty good job at selling the war by manipulating the truth, playing on people’s fears and misleading people all over the world. (Hell, lets face it they just LIED and LIED and kept on LIEING) I was willing to accept that many people (including you) were unwittingly deceived back then. Well a few months have past and the lies have been exposed. Sure they keep making up new lies in an attempt to cover up and down play the old ones and the atrocities that have resulted. I also realise most people don’t ‘want’ to accept that they were blindly mislead. They don’t ‘want’ to believe that their government or their country could have intentionally attacked innocent people without just cause or provocation (after all – that’s what ‘terrorism’ is). They don’t ‘want’ to believe that they were (and in some cases still are) caught up in the propaganda, the anti-terrorist hype, the emotions of Sept11, the hate, the revenge, the lies etc. To put it simply, they don’t ‘want’ to believe that they were (or are) wrong. It takes strength of character to admit such a colossal error of judgement. Some have it and others just change the angle of the lie to suit or continue to fool themselves. Maybe some really do think that Americans are just so superior that it’s ok to do whatever they want, to whomever they want, wherever they want, for whatever reason they decide (even if it is a made up reason) regardless of life, law or morality. Why not, America is too big, too strong to be worried about petty subjects like human rights, international law, the UN, the Geneva convention, justice, freedom or even common sense. (As long as the US casualties aren’t as high as the havoc they reek upon their current target of choice – civilian or military, then it seems anything can be justified?)

We can talk about all the injustice caused by others (eg: Saddam) and if someone was really interested in helping to solve the problem I would be all ears. Unfortunately it doesn’t take a genius to realise that the war was never about liberating Iraq or it’s people. It was never a humanitarian effort just as it was never conducted for the defence of America or it’s allies against aggression or for protection from weapons of mass destruction. Nor was it an effort to counter terrorism. Any honest, thinking person can see this more and more plainly as time goes on and more of the story unfolds. Strength of character is something that the US President and his cronies obviously do not possess. I suppose it would be asking a lot to have them willingly take responsibility for their actions. Actions that go far beyond the simple act of lying and at the very least should compel them to answer to a war crimes tribunal. It’s pretty obvious why the George bush and Co want to avoid the truth of what they are doing, in fact we all want to avoid the harsh reality of it because if we faced up to it we would have to admit our ‘so-called’ leaders are in fact madmen, war criminals and terrorist. They just happen to be in the privileged and very dangerous position where they know no-one else is crazy enough to use the raw power required to directly oppose or stop them. They have already demonstrated the insane lengths that they are willing to go to. Not too many want to tangle with madmen with such power at their disposal. So George and his mates are safe, as long as they can keep enough of their own people confused or fooled into supporting or at least turning a blind eye to their terrorist activities in the ironic “war on terror”.

I know from your previous posts that you will refute all adverse claims about the American government. I know that you will argue that their motives are nothing short of pure and righteous. I know that you will continue the attempt to cover up the lies and criminal activities with your own special brand of pro-aggression propaganda.

What I don’t know Joe is… Why, when it’s so obviously wrong, do you continue to do it?

Are you an agent hired by the government to spread deceit on these discussion groups? Are you simply ignorant of what is ‘really’ happening? Are you just avoiding truth because of the shame it might cause to admit that good American/British/Australian people could be persuaded to accept such evil from their own elected officials (servants)? Or have you really managed to delude yourself into the belief that terror, death, war, disease & devastation rained down upon any who are relatively helpless or unable defend themselves are all cures and not a causes of human misery?

-- Col (ceg@winningteam.com), October 16, 2003.

I don't believe this; --''manipulating the truth, playing on people's fears and misleading people all over the world. (Hell, lets face it they just LIED and LIED and kept on LYING) I was willing to accept that many people (including you) were unwittingly deceived;'' --and neither do more than 50% of all Americans. The real fact is, everybody knew up front, a full-scale war on terrorism was declared right after Sept. 11; a war against the countries which sheltered, aided, abetted and funded Al Quaeda & the so-called Jihad.

That was never a form of manipulation, or a lie. We're at war with terrorism. Iraq definitely ranked right up there with the most dangerous Islamic states. Our leaders asked and got that 1441 resolution from UNSC; not only for Afghanistan, but any other state implicated. The President clearly stated then, Either you'll be with us, or against us. He demanded Saddam Hussein to comply with 1441; and in the end gave him 48 hours deadline.

Don't you recall, Co; a large mural found in Saddam's palace; in full color? It depicted a scene of the carnage in NYC; the twin towers with exploding airliners striking, and people jumping out of them to the streets below?

Saddam Hussein probably loved that mural. He was an accomplice after the fact, IMO. He was funding terrorists at the very LEAST, and possibly preparing or hiding his weapons. It was urgent that his regime be destroyed, for the stability of the Mid East. Nothing leading up to the events was an open lie; even if some intelligence is now disputed. The war against terrorism continues. Bush didn't lie, he clearly said we would have a very long road ahead. He was asked how long the process was going to take. He answered honestly: ''As long as it takes.'' That is not manipulation. Not by Bush; and he never had administration support from any media, either. On the contrary. Only the people have supported him; at one point 72% of them. The media is anxious to push your version of this war; not Bush's.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

Co. you assert that the US Government lied. PROVE IT. Don't just say it, connect the dots. Prove it. The march to war had many not just one motive. Nowhere in the time prior to the war did I or anyone in the Bush Administration or the Media claim that war was to be waged for just one reason: wmd.

They were ONE of MANY factors. There was the formal, declared motive of taking out Iraq BEFORE ITS THREATS BECAME IMMINENT. After the fact the Media and Left have tried to re-write history by claiming that Iraq was not an imminent threat... well duh! We didn't say it was! We said "we're not going to wait until they're powerful enough to threaten us imminently"!!!!! So no one lied.

You just can't stand being wrong. Admit it.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 17, 2003.

The number of US soldiers killed since the supposed ‘end of the war’ probably isn’t (on it’s own) a reason to refute the war as a whole.

It is valid respectfully to criticize any nation's involvement in any war, but it is never valid to use grossly inaccurate terminology in one's arguments. The reference to "supposed 'end of the war'" is an invalid criticism of the U.S. and its president.

G. W. Bush has never spoken of the "end of the war." While he knew that that there would be a period of unknown (and probably protracted) length during which skirmishes (with casualties) would occur in Iraq, he accurately stated, on May 1: "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." He also repeated what he made clear within days of 09/11/2001 -- that the "War" was the "War on Terror," while that which takes place locally, such as in Afghanistan and Iraq, are just "Battles" within the War. The "War on Terror" was started around 1970 by the first global terrorists, who perpetrated hijackings and the like. Just as the War was in progress (in a "low profile") for 30 years prior to the "9/11" attacks, now it will go on (in a "higher profile") for many more years. There is no escaping it and no use wasting time arguing against it.

As just published today, "U.S. combat deaths since ... May 1 ... now stand at 101." That is fewer than the combat deaths that occurred prior to May 1. (There have also been a number of non-combat deaths -- e.g., accidents, suicides -- since May 1.)

I know from your previous posts that you will refute all adverse claims about the American government. The word "refute" means "to prove wrong by argument or evidence." So, the self-defeating comment of "Col" is quite correct! Joe will indeed prove him wrong, because Col is wrong -- an incredibly ignorant, obnoxiously abusive, anti-American pacifist. (His spelling reveals that he is not an American himself.)

-- (Facing@the.Facts), October 17, 2003.

I also find it highly suspicious that the Left is using moral terminology with reference to Bush, as in "he's immoral" when THEIR IDOL, BILL CLINTON both in foreign and domestic policy managed the helm of state during wave after wave of seriously immoral activity: he allowed GENOCIDE to occur in Ruanda: 500,000 innocent civilians hacked to death! His economic embargo against HAITI wiped out that poor nation's middle class thus making the poor even poorer! He promoted Abortion and homosexuality via the State Department and UN at Cairo in 1994 by promising to WITHHOLD HUMANITARIAN AID TO NATIONS THAT REFUSED TO CHANGE THEIR CONSTITUTIONS AND ALLOW ABORTION AND HOMOSEXUALITY! And you wonder why the Moslems consider us the "great Satan???? He tried to ram-rod, FORCE these moral issues on poor people!

He watched while hundreds of thousands of civilians lost life and limb in the Balkans. He went to war in Kosovo WITHOUT THE UN PERMISSION! HE DID NOT OFFER A TIME-TABLE TO EXIT...AND WE'RE STILL THERE!!!!!!! And you say........nothing.

Speaking of immorality....he forced sex on employees, and by EVERY DEFINITION BROUGHT TO US BY THE FEMINISTS THEMSELVES, ENGAGED IN SEXUAL HARRASSMENT ON US.GOVERNMENT TIME, AT THE OFFICE...

Speaking of immorality...he LIED TO THE US PUBLIC REPEATEDLY AND UNDER OATH!

Speaking of immorality... he LIED TO THE VOTERS BY RAISING TAXES ON THE MIDDLE CLASS!

speaking of immorality... he did NOTHING to promote democracy ANYWHERE.

Yet the Left considers him a saint and considers Bush "immoral". Well, since when has the Left had any moral authority or consistent policy?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 17, 2003.

Dear Joe:
There can never be any way of perfection in power politics; on the left or the right. But there is no honor on the left; sometimes honor on the conservative right. Not always, but often.

We haven't had honorable men on the left for over a century in America. We have seen opportunists, con men-- the damned; but no honorable men.

The right has no corner on honor, but it produces an occasional leader. We have elected at least a Leader; Bush the younger. He makes the others look impotent by comparison. If he leads his country along a bad path, we'll realise finally how badly we've offended God. We'll pay a high price.

If Bush leads his people on the path of honor and justice, we will know God was with us. It's either the glory or the disgrace. But Bush is a leader. Now we have to pray for him, that his faith in God not be superficial; because these are very serious times. No one on the left leads. All are panderers and dishonest men.

If our country deserves the wrath of God one of them will achieve the highest office in the land. It's our own will after all; a people is sure to elect the one it deserves.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 17, 2003.

Hear we go… it’s a play on words. I do apologise, I guess using the word “refute” wasn’t quite accurate. I probably should have said that Joe, and others, will simply resort to ‘tactics’ rather than evidence, proof or logic to defend US government sanctioned terror. As for the phrase “…’supposed’ end of the war”. I was discussing an earlier post by -- Elpidio Gonzalez where it was stated “After may first when the USA declared the War over more soldiers have died than those that died during the war.” I find it quite amazing that in a discussion such as this people are more worried about grammar and quoting people out of context so as to nit pick at petty points in order to divert attention away from the real issues.

I don’t see this as an argument for or against George Bush’s government as compared to the previous government. If Bill Clinton or anyone else, were in power all this would be just as wrong. Listing a bunch of things that Bill Clinton did (as was done above) would appear to me to have little bearing on the issue at hand. If we want to talk about Bill then there’s no real need to argue I agree with Joe. In fact there is quite a long line of corrupt US administrations. However once again I fail to see why a previous bad government is a reason for the next one to be bad… what’s the story are they just trying to out-do each other on the bad governance scale? I would prefer to see people who are interested in good governance rather than using past examples of bad governance to excuse more bad governance. What happened to the American ideas of liberty, limited government, freedom, justice etc?

As I have explained before I am not anti-American nor am I a pacifist. However as some have observed and pointed out (with the use of some colourful adjectives) I am not an American, again a nice diversionary tactic. As if only an American has the right to contribute to this discussion, or have a voice. Anyway whilst not being American I am a great believer in the ideals that America was founded on. I come from a country, which, in practical terms is probably just as ‘free’ as America. As a people we share some similarity to America, a fact that I would be proud of if America stood for what America used to be and what she is supposed to be. I have seen her Constitution, her Bill of Rights, her Declaration of Independence. I believe in her principles and would be proud to uphold them, I have felt saddened because even though we enjoy a comparable level of freedom here we don’t have comparable documents to proclaim or protect it. However what saddens me more is the knowledge that even with these protections in place the foundations of America are collapsing (not from any external threat – but from within). I would have thought it anti-American to condone actions such as unprovoked aggressive war, pre-emptive strikes, use of WOMS, denial of human rights etc, etc… After all these sounds more like the hallmarks of Nazi Germany thus making them just about as ‘un- American’ as possible. Unfortunately the world is being turned upside down.

Now we live in a world where Americans (of all people) can condone and actively support the principle crime of the Nazi’s during WWII where at the Nuremberg trials it was concluded that the they were guilty of the crime of “waging aggressive war” when they carried out their 'preemptive' strikes on of Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc. We now have America (of all places) willing to counter even just the remote possibility of future potential threats with aggressive war, invasion etc. I have seen statements in this discussion indicating that the war was justified because, even though it turns out that Iraq was not a real threat at all it may possibly have become a threat in the future… Is it just me or can anyone else see how crazy this is? Don’t you realise what you are saying? That type of logic can be applied to any country anywhere. That gives all the power hungry leaders in the world free reign to kill anyone, anywhere, anytime on the premise that they ‘may’ become a future threat one day. It also excuses all terrorist acts, my God, can’t you see… It is nothing short of madness… If the perpetuators of Sept11 just come out and say that they saw America as a potential threat then it makes it all ok does it? Well does it? After all America IS a threat, not just a possible one. America actually does have WOMD and has proved in recent years that it has no qualms about their indiscriminate use of them against civilian and military targets alike. The lines are blurred, it’s just collateral damage. It’s nothing new, history repeats… but it’s not an excuse either.

How can it be that people in free countries have been so brainwashed so as to believe that the cure for terror and aggression is to randomly attack others with even more terror and aggression? Surely fighting terror with more terror can only lead to an escalating war of terror. (Note: “war OF terror’ NOT ‘war ON terror’) That’s the problem… Have we sunk so low to not care that we are bigger terrorist who commit more acts of terrorism than the terrorist that we are fighting? (Under the guise of ‘war on terror’) The mere topic of this discussion suggests that we have sunk pretty low. Imagine if someone made the same type of insinuation about Sept11 where initial reports indicated a much higher death toll. Are we to take it that it’s all fine and dandy because those early predictions were a myth the actual death toll was much lower at under 3000. So according to Joe’s logic it’s no big deal because the deaths didn’t meet expectations? According to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ the civilian death toll in Iraq is actually at least twice that of Sept11 but they aren’t American lives is that it, is that why such a statement was made?

-- Col (ceg@winningteam.com), October 21, 2003.

OK, I'm going to spell it out for you, Col.

1) You are mistaken again because you probably don't read the direct sources of news rather than the spin of news editorials. Bush declared an "end to major combat operations", NOT TO THE WAR in Iraq. Those words MEAN SOMETHING: it means there are minor combat operations which are on-going. He didn't declare "peace" on the USS Lincoln.

2) You claim that the United States has embarked on all this "unprovoked aggression"... really? Seriously? Nothing at all happened to us in Saudia Arabia in 1992? President Bush (41) was not targetted by Iraqi agents in 1993? The USS Cole was not attacked? Two US Embassies in Africa and hundreds of civilians were not bombed? Nothing remarkable happened on September 11, 2001?

So much for me not "giving evidence or logic" for my arguments!

3) You claim that the United States has denied human rights. Oh Really? Where? When? Against whom? We have defended the rights of women to learn how to read in Afganistan, we are defending and providing the means for Iraqi children to go back to school in Iraq. Seems to me that the only people that need fear us are those who are going out of their way to attack us. Yet even with those we attack, we grant rights of surrender, food, clothing, medical attention and religious dietary and prayer support.

So much for us being more terrorists than they are!

4) You claim we INDISCRIMINATELY USE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION against civilian and military targets alike. Well first of all there are only 3 types of WMD: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical arms. So far I don't recall the United States armed forces using any nukes in Afganistan or Iraq, and the US forces don't have any stocks of weaponized Biological or Chemical arms.

So what are you talking about? As for "indiscriminate" bombing... that's exactly what we DIDN'T DO! Our bombs are so accurate and so well designed that for the first time in modern warfare we - unlike all other powers on earth - can and did only attack military targets!

There was no carpet bombing, no use of the MOAB, no dropping Daisy cutters on Bagdad, Tikrit, Mosul or Al Najaf...

So what in the world are you talking about???

5) Finally, you claim that the United States is "randomly attacking" people, thus contributing to terror. um, ah, like Afganistan was a radom attack and had nothing to do with the Taliban's refusal to turn over Al Queda and OBL? We negotiated with them, they refused to budge, and so we invaded, toppled their regime and rooted out half of Al Queda.... what's random about that?

As for Iraq...well, they had been supporting terrorists in Israel, had tried to kill President Bush senior, had broken 11 UN resolutions INCLUDING THE TERMS OF THE ARMISTICE SIGNED TO END GULF WAR ONE, WHICH IN ALL INTERNATIONAL LAW MEANS THE OTHER PARTY COULD HAVE RESUMED HOSTILITIES... but we won't quibble with international law with someone who so highly praises American Jurisprudence (except when used in defense of Americans) or American ideals (except when exported to all other nations).

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), October 21, 2003.

Col ... You are mistaken again because you probably don't read the direct sources of news rather than the spin of news editorials.

You've got it figured out, Joe.

Anyone who has enough intelligence to be able to read and write -- and who has "read the direct sources of news" -- would be incapable of writing the garbage that Col has posted. He could have no excuse for burdening us with that (so easily REFUTE-able) junk EXCEPT the excuse that he copied it from anti-American, pacifist editorials.

If he now comes back and claims that he actually "read the direct sources of news," it would indicate that he is mentally ill, because only crazed person could read the objective facts and STILL come to such abominably false conclusions as Col has presented.

-- (Facing@the.Facts), October 21, 2003.

Hi, Joe.

I know you evaded my tenet: whay is George Bush Jr. statining soldiers there as an occupation force when he could have done what he did in Afghanistan, which in my opinion was a more dangerous place even now. When I e-mailed Bush I told him to do what he did in Afganistan: put an interim government. Similar situation: minorities: Tajiks help the US take over Afghanistan with the Uzbeks and Hazaras. Iraq: the Kurds in the North and the Shias' in the South.

Main difference: Afghanistan no oil, no gas,.... Iraq:world's second reserves, turist destinations, archeological sites,...

Conclusion by Iraqis: is the money, stupid.

In your opinion, how long should the USA stay there before it becomes Vietnam #2? What necessary steps should the USA use to make sure Iraq is a free nation again ? What necessary steps would you use to keep the nation together, instead of breaking into three once the USA leaves one day?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 22, 2003.

When I e-mailed Bush I told him to do what he did in Afganistan: put an interim government.

What a hallucinator! Actually thinks that a U.S. president reads e-mails from day-dreaming nobodies.

Go to a political board to discuss these questions, not a Catholic board: "In your opinion, how long should the USA stay there before it becomes Vietnam #2? What necessary steps should the USA use to make sure Iraq is a free nation again ? What necessary steps would you use to keep the nation together, instead of breaking into three once the USA leaves one day?"

Better yet, drop George W another e-mail containing those questions. See if he answers.

-- (Facing@the.Facts), October 23, 2003.

better yet, he could just ask God next time they have tea together...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 23, 2003.

\ Poor Elpidio--
See what your dreams get you into? You can't contain your ostentation any more. Bush is a President of the United States exercising his executive powers. One thing is to react unfavorably to that; many Americans have. But, it's HIS power! Lincoln gave us a civil war; it was his power to do so. Nobody hates Lincoln.

You protest:
''Why is George Bush Jr. stationing soldiers there as an occupation force when he could have done what he did in Afghanistan, etc.,''

Why did our gov't station American forces in Japan; after lobbing atom bombs at her? You forget, Americans occupied Japan until 1947! They helped Japan out of the PITS! They are still in Germany, for Pete's sakes!

We have that power to do it over again in the Mid East. Afghanistan & Iraq will rebuild with our help. Then THEY will have a significant role in the war on terror, alongside our soldiers. It's a long-range plan; and we should all pray for Bush's success. Today he is bashed. But with God's help, history will acknowledge Bush as one of the great American presidents. Events will prove it, and all his opponents will have to face it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 23, 2003.

Afganistan is Afganistan, Vietnam is Vietnam. One country is not another so tactics and strategy must necessarily differ from case to case.

In Vietnam we were fighting a civil war - that began in 1940 and went through Japanese and then French phases before we took it over. Then too, we were dealing with a proxy-war: really fighting the Russians and Chinese... plus it was in Southeast Asian jungles, etc.

In Afganistan, we have chosen to have a small "footprint" on the ground because Afganistan is rocky, mountainous and the ideal place for ambushing convoys. So...we don't "do" convoys!

Iraq is largely flat - and surrounded by desserts... except in the middle, where our 150,000 men are. We have a big footprint there because Iraq is bigger than Afganistan (area wise and population), had a larger army and more stockpiles of weaponry to guard, and sure, is the heart of the beast - smack-dab in the middle of the Middle East.

Now you seem worried that 2-5 casualties a week is a terrible price to pay. Hmmmmmm. 281 million Americans, 1.5 million in the armed forces, 150,000 stationed in Iraq... and the Iraqi and foreign terrorists can ONLY kill 2-5 per week??? AND YOU PEOPLE ARE SCARED ABOUT THIS????

More Americans die of gunshot wounds in Washington DC every month than US soldiers are dying in Iraq as a whole! http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.doc

Yet we're not all falling over ourselves weeping about a Vietnam Quagmire in Washington DC! We're not going into panic-and-retreat mode on the News every night. There's no drip-drip-drip drum beat of grumpy "news-casters" darkly mentioning that the situation calls for unconditional surrender of the city to thugs "so that they'll stop shooting at us"!

We fought a major war in 1 month...and lost 130 men. Since then we've lost about as many in 6 months... while rebuilding a country the size of California, awash in AK-47s and RPGs...

Our response to road side bombings and sniper slayings of US patrols has not been the systematic fire-bombing of cities, summary executions of every local civilians, or the rape of their wives... yet WE are considered the problem!

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 23, 2003.

Here's some facinating stats from 2001: 147 police were killed in the United States - about as many died in "major combat operations" that ended on May 1, 2003 in Iraq. Has anyone called for the unilateral surrender of all police to keep them from being killed?

Over 15,000 other Americans, mainly men, were killed. That's more than died in Vietnam in any year except 1968 I believe. Yet Vietnam was a "quagmire" but America isn't. It's all a matter of perspective!

"During 2001, murder increased 2.5 percent to a total of 15,980.65 Males comprised 76 percent of murder victims in 2001, while 23 percent of victims were female.66 In 2001, 49 percent of murder victims were White, 47 percent were Black, and 3 percent were of other races.67 Firearms were used in 63.4 percent of all murders in 2001, knives in 13.1 percent, and personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) in 6.7 percent.68 Of known victim-offender relationships in 2001, acquaintances comprised 21.6 percent of all offenders, while strangers and family members made up 13.1 percent (each). Boyfriends and girlfriends were 4.2 percent of the total number of offenders.69 Approximately 2 percent of all female murder victims in 2001 were raped prior to being killed.70 According to a new study, improvements in emergency care over the past 40 years have helped reduce deaths among assault victims by nearly 70 percent, and thus lower the nation’s rate of murder.71 In the year 2002, 147 law enforcement officers were killed in the line of duty. Fourteen of those were women.72 Of the 147 officers killed during 2002, 55 were shot to death; two officers were beaten to death; two officers were stabbed to death; and one officer was killed in a bomb-related incident.73 References

http://www.ncvc.org/resources/statistics/homicide/

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 23, 2003.

Dear Joe:
I recall reading the numbers. But now I don't remember them --How many casualties all told; and how many men died in one day during the Normandy landing? ONE day?

It's something unbelievable. Now we have men who go pale over our casualties in the Middle East; fighting an enemy who has no qualms about killing every single American in the world, if he gets the chance!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 23, 2003.

That's why they cal it modern warfare, Eugene. Almost No one is supposed to get killed. The airplanes and the smart bombs, together with better armor protection are supposed to do that.

Korea, Warld War II, World War I, Crimea 1854, Waterloo, the battle for Russia by Napoleon, Lepanto,... were mostly hand to hand, body to body fighting. Casualties were higher.

Joe and his homeboy, so called the.facts( that is the lies, real name) are misrepresenting facts. Casualties does not refer to dead people but also to injured ones. Close to 200 have been killed since May, over 1500 wounded. I wrote the President there will be at least 5000 casualties, that was before the War started. So far, The MAN is making me look good.

It is the poor men who die or the sons of the lower middle class. Last time richer people died was World war II. That is why neither Clinton or Bush Jr. ever experience combat.

Now, paul H, how do you know God likes tea? Did you talk to him already? When you do let me know. Maybe he likes cffee. After all, with all the crziness in this world I wonder if he can go to sleep at all.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 23, 2003.

By the way, here iss an article from October 23, from Yahoo News.

Press Underreports Wounded in Iraq

NEW YORK -- When newspapers reported this week on poor medical and living conditions for Americans injured in Iraq (news - web sites), it might have come as a shock for some readers. For months, the press has barely mentioned non-fatal casualties or the severity of their wounds.

E&P reported in July that while deaths in combat are often tallied by newspapers, the many non-combat troop deaths in Iraq are virtually ignored. It turns out that newspaper readers have also been shortchanged in getting a sense of the number of troops injured, in and out of battle.

"There could be some inattention to [the number of injured troops]," said Philip Bennett, Washington Post assistant managing editor of the foreign desk. "And obviously if there is, it should be corrected. Soldiers getting wounded is part of the reality of conflict on the ground. I think if you were to find or discover that those figures are being overlooked, that would be something we'd want to correct."

Few newspapers routinely report injuries in Iraq, beyond references to specific incidents. Since the war began in March, 1,927 soldiers have been wounded in Iraq, many quite severely. (The tally is current as of Oct. 20.) Of this number, 1,590 were wounded in hostile action, and 337 from other causes. About 20% of the injured in Iraq have suffered severe brain injuries, and as many as 70% "had the potential for resulting in brain injury," according to an Oct. 16 article in The Boston Globe.

Current injury statistics were easily obtained by E&P through U.S. Central Command and the Pentagon (news - web sites), so getting the numbers is no longer a problem. According to Lawrence F. Kaplan, author of an article on injured troops in the Oct. 13 issue of The New Republic, this information has only recently been readily accessible. "Pentagon officials have rebuked public affairs officers who release casualty figures, and, until recently, U.S. Central Command did not regularly publicize the injured tally either," Kaplan wrote.

The difference between "hostile" and other injuries, according to Army spokesman Maj. Steven Stover at the Pentagon, is that "one is gonna get you a Purple Heart, and one's not. One's for wounds inflicted by the enemy. It could be any type of injury inflicted by someone who intends you harm."

A United Press International investigation, published Oct. 20, revealed that many wounded veterans from Iraq, under care at places such as the Fort Stewart military base in Georgia, must wait "weeks and months for proper medical help" and are being kept in living conditions that are "unacceptable for sick and injured soldiers." One officer was quoted as saying, "They're being treated like dogs." The Army has said it is attempting to remedy the situation.

In The New Republic, Kaplan reported on the state of many injured soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. According to Kaplan, modern medicine and rapid response techniques allow many wounded soldiers to survive injuries that would have killed them in previous wars. Many of these wounded soldiers are left with debilitating injury or loss of limb. Newspapers that only track hostile combat deaths fail to capture the human toll of thousands of troops left injured and crippled, he wrote.

"The near-invisibility of the wounded has several sources," Kaplan wrote. "The media has always treated combat deaths as the most reliable measure of battlefield progress, while for its part the administration has been reluctant to divulge the full number of wounded."

Even now, when the injury information is easily available, many newspapers neglect to report or keep a tally, as an informal survey of some top papers has shown. This comes on the heels of reports Wednesday that attacks on American troops in Iraq had increased in recent weeks from an average of 15 to 20 attacks per day to about 20 to 25 attacks a day, with a peak at about 35 attacks in one day, according to the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez.

According to an Oct. 3 report by UPI, nearly 4,000 soldiers had been medically evacuated from Iraq for non-combat reasons.

As for the tally of total deaths in Iraq, most of the media continues to only cite those killed in hostile action. On Oct. 20, for example, The New York Times reported: "Since President Bush (news - web sites) declared an end to major hostilities in Iraq on May 1, 106 American soldiers have been killed." But this number represents only those killed in combat by hostile fire. A total of 200 American troops have been killed in this time period from all causes, such as vehicle accidents, drowning, and suicides, a figure that is rarely mentioned in the press.

--Seth Porges (sporges@editorandpublisher.com) is a reporter for E&P.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 23, 2003.

Yes; all the casualties aren't the dead men. We have the wounded.

We also know, all our casualties in this war-- the war on terror; are not on Iraqi or Afghanistani soil. I see men & women dropping from windows in the sky, onto the streets from the Twin Towers; to their deaths. I see hundreds of others below the falling towers, buried under tons of burnt rock, glass, steel. The fire-fighters; the police and paramedics; crushed under two airplanes and two smashed skyscrapers; a huge firestorm. You forgot those casualties, Elpidio. All told, as many as 3,000 dead. Many hundreds injured or maimed for life.

There is no forgetting. We know just who the enemies are. We know where they live. They think they won. We think all the world is waiting for the day of reckoning. This is only the first year of the war on terror. Elpidio; the world hasn't seen anything yet. All those animals are going to pay. -- That's why our President is the right one for this job. He wears PANTS, Elpidio. He isn't giving the store away.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 23, 2003.

Yes, Eugene, Bush weras PANTS. By the way, it is an arabic word.

Those who created Sep. 11 , 2001 were Saudi Arabians, not Iraqis, not Afghanis.Saudi Arabia financed them. Even the CIA financed them at one time. Remember the old Soviet Government of Afghanistan, then the government which included Masoud was overthrown by the Pakistanis and Al qaeda? Even more, these guys also went to Bosnia to kill Serbs.

By the way, we bombed the Serbs!

You don't see Bush dropping bombs on Saudi Arabia.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 23, 2003.

Look for another forum. If you expect our country to attack Saudi Arabia on account of your hunch and your dreams, I'm not worried. Beating Saudi Arabia shouldn't be hard. Yes; the difference between Iraq and the 9-11 skyjackers isn't hard to see. I can't be bothered.

It's JIHAD we know as the enemy. Not one country. Iraq has been supporting and inciting, funding the terror network. Iraq had the capacity to bring WMD to bear on the west, as a promoter of JIHAD. Now it won't have that. --BUSH cut their legs off at the knees.

The good news is, all neighboring states are thinking: What if we're next? This spooks them into alignment. They saw (finally) what happens to America's enemy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 23, 2003.

Now, paul H, how do you know God likes tea?

well, i made a supposition based on the fact that God created tea, most tea (at least that which is not poisoned) is beneficial in some medical capacity, making tea a good thing. since God seems to like good things (based on scripture) i made an educated guess.

Did you talk to him already? When you do let me know.

i talk to God all the time. i say "dear God, please let me do well on this midterm." sometimes God tosses me some grace, and sometimes not.

Maybe he likes cffee.

could be. coffee is definately a staple food in college.

After all, with all the crziness in this world I wonder if he can go to sleep at all.

somehow i doubt that God needs sleep. if He tells you, let me know.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 23, 2003.

Hello, Elpido

You said, "..Now Paul H. how do you know God likes tea?"

Did God tell you different when you last said you spoke to him in a dream a few months back? You should be the one telling us"dreamer"!

"Did you talk to Him(meaning God) already?"[You said to paul]

I never read paul post about "talking to God", but you have said you have "talked to God" in forum before.[Rember your dreams?](even though you don't believe in the Holy Trinity)

What did President Bush say to the three e-mails that you said you sent him last month?[Rember about the Iraqi Gov?]

-- - (David@excite.com), October 24, 2003.

I started this thread to respond to those doom-and-gloomers out there who opposed any "war" with Iraq on the grounds (the PRESUMPTION) that ANY armed invasion of Iraq would result in the immediate and unavoidable loss of TENS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqi civilians.

There were people who claimed that no amount of WMD, evil ties to terrorism, broken treaties, defiance to UN resolutions, attempted assassinations against US presidents or personnel, or internal Iraqi gulags could justify an invasion - because the war would be worse than the tyranny: more would die as a result.

But lo and behold, we didn't drop atomic bombs, MOABs, napalm, or carpet bomb (area bomb) Iraq's major cities. We were not "indiscriminate" in our use of modern weaponry (in part because these weapons are too expensive to USE INDISCRIMINATELY!!!).

lO AND BEHOLD, in battle after battle and the seizure of Bagdad itself, we did not fight door to door and end with tens of thousands of iraqi civilians dead and hundreds of thousands wounded or homeless.

So the doom-and-gloomers shifted their attention and attacks to the low grade guerrilla attacks on US convoys... claiming that any resistance to US personnel was proof of "Quagmire" and the doom of all our efforts.

Do any of these critics compare our work in Iraq with the Allies rebuilding of Europe after WWII? NO. Why not? Because the Allies took much longer to clean things up and establish democracy in Germany than we alone are doing in Iraq!

Do any of these critics compare our work promoting a new Iraqi government and constitution with OUR OWN HISTORY? No. Why not? Because it took the Continental Congress YEARS to ratify our US Constitution...but the US is helping Iraqis draft theirs within a year.

It's amazing that these critics will simultaneously claim that there was no "link" between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Al Queda, but then assert that since US Troops keep running into Al Queda and other terrorists working in the Sunni Triangle, that this is proof that we've stirred up a hornet's nest and should beat a hasty retreat! AMAZING examples of mental compartimentalization!

Meanwhile, Russian troops continue to fight guerrillas in Chechnia...but who here has heard anything recently about their casualties? Chinese troops continue to mass on the Taiwan strait...but where is the "watch-dog" media reporting on this? FRENCH troops continue to patrol and engage in firefights in various African countries...but if they are taking casualties, I for one haven't heard or read anything about it.

So aparently on the United States' Army is suffering casualties and this is proof that we made a mistake, should surrender Iraq to Saddam, declare unilateral disarmament and waving the peace symbol declare and end to history. Right?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 24, 2003.

When the time comes, Dave at excite, I will show the threads, the e- mails. For now you can have fun at my expense.

Eugene, you got it all wrong. Saddam was never a Jihad Man, he did not support Al-Qaeda. He was a socialist in the beginning. He was a secular man. Later, power corupted him to ther point he killed most of his enemies and terrorized his own people. He massacred people like the Kurds and Shias. That was the reason I supported Bush's invasion of Iraq. I supported the invasion with a warning: within 2 months put someone from Iraq in charge. Bush didn't do it, Eugene.

Joe, I asked you for your own input. You run around the bush.History is my main subject. I know about Chechnia and the Russians, The Soviets and the Afghans,The Serbs and the Croats, The Turks and the Armenians, The Romans and the Jews, Hitler and the Jews, Mussolini and the Ethiopians,France and Algeria, Omar Mukhta and the Italians, Pearl harbor, Korea, Vietnam, Tamil Tigers and Sri Lanka, David and Goliath, Mexico 1968, Battle of marathon, ...

Don't forget I also supported the invasion. I had my plan to go in and get out. That is what I e-mailed the President.

I want to know your plan. You started the thread, I didn't.

The universe is infinite, paul H. Even at that, God would appear to more people if they truly wanted to see him. Everyday, I wonder if God still has second thoughts about creating us. By creating us in his own image: free to do as we please, capable of doing good and evil at any time.

Where is the Terminator, the total Recall of the Human Race... he's now on his way to Sacramento.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), October 24, 2003.

You should get up to date and read http://iraqbodycount.net/ documenting 16,000 + deaths. Also the recent article in Lancet medical journal http://www.thelancet.com/journal/vol364/iss9445/early_online_publication), which estimates 100,000 deaths. Now how many people do you have to kill to bring about democracy or is it really about money, oil and power. George Bush I, abandoned the freedom fighters in Southern Iraq and now his son is going to keep killing people in Iraq until they all hate us. Not really a good plan for reducing terrorism.

-- x x (x@x.com), October 29, 2004.

xx,

you are uneducated as to the public opinion held towards our troops in iraq by the iraq citizens.

also, the last time a post on this thread was made was more than a year ago, which means that the information posted back then was accurate. If you will look, each post is date stamped to avoid confusion such as yours.

Finally, 16,000 deaths is almost nothing when it comes to war. FURTHER, you fail to mention a simple truth: that a huge portion of these deaths are caused by insurgents (re: saddams former cronies and new terrorists to the region). FURTHER, you forget how many mass graves have been found where saddam was executing his own citizenry. the question is this... at what price do we leave an evil dictator in office?

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 29, 2004.

Once a REAL social scientist corraborates that cooked up number of 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq, I'll believe it. Until then, that Lancet claim is just that, a claim. Unfortunately lots of unsubstantiated claims are making their ways to headlines these days - including Haliburton (surprise!) being investigated by the FBI (no matter who wins, in a week they'll be found innocent).

Making a claim about deaths - when you aren't actually there and don't show the world your data is typical urban legend stuff anyway.

Even the anti-war website has to admit to bias - they take as Gospel what Iraqi sources told them both during the war and what biased terror sources tell them now.

The only reliable numbers are those from the Department of Defense and Iraqi blog sites - which pin the number well below the 40,000 number of civilians ROUTINELY killed or starved to death under Saddam.

The number would be lower too if only the dead-enders Baathists and Jihadists would stop targetting Iraqi civilians. Already the number of Iraqis killed by terrorists is more than any accidentally killed by stray American bombs.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 29, 2004.

I think Joe that next to the British Medical Journal the Lancet is highly regarded in medical circles. Not saying they got it right but Im sure they wouldnt publish anything from "pretend" social scientists.

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 30, 2004.

Found a supporting article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338362,00.html

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 30, 2004.

I think it's pretty obvious that “some people” (not mentioning names) are simply deluded. It wouldn't matter what the number of Iraqi deaths was, is, or will become. It could be counted in the hundreds of thousands or millions and still I don’t think it would matter much to ‘some people’. You see ‘some people’ live in the fantasy world where pre-emptive war is justified even if the reasons for it are all completely false. They believe the lies that they’re told and they happily perpetuate them.

I don't think it would help to try logic or reason with ‘some people’ because they really don’t want to believe that killing innocent people is wrong (at least not if those innocent people live in Iraq or so it would seem). They don't want to believe that the reasons for these killings are just lies, pure and simple. They don't want to believe the truth that this war (as with most wars) is based on lies and deception and that one single innocent person killed for a lie is absolutely too many deaths. (That’s right – One single person dying in Iraq or anywhere else for nothing more than a list of lies is, in itself an “enormous loss of life” yet ‘some people’ don’t care if thousands are killed? I’ll never understand that.

‘Some people’ just don't look past the lies that they're told, they seem to have lost the ability to think for themselves. If a mass grave is found ‘some people’ cite it as a justification for the war even if the humanitarian workers and Iraqi people on the ground confirm that the bodies are those killed by previous American bombardment, hastily buried out of necessity from this war or the last one (or from any of the continued bombing in-between). The facts are not important to ‘some people’ they would rather think that their elite leaders in Washington will save the world because they know what’s best for all of humanity. If a few hundred tonnes of depleted uranium is needed to ensure the deaths of Iraqis for generations to come then it must be good, for surely our leaders would not use a ‘weapon of mass destruction’ (which depleted uranium is) unless it was for the good of all mankind. If contravening the Geneva Convention is endorsed by our ‘all knowing’ leaders then ‘some people’ believe that it must be ok. After all, the Geneva Convention was only written to prevent horrific war crimes. If our leaders are now guilty of those war crimes then ‘some people’ will dismiss them, because they can’t be that bad if our side does it. Even if our leaders were to do the unspeakable and manufacture terrorist groups and arrange terrorist acts to occur so they could invent an enemy and justify a never the ending war ‘some people’ would welcome it because they haven’t learnt any of the lessons that history has taught us. (Gee I hope that never happens for real huh!) I guess it doesn't help ‘some people’ that government officials and the main stream media tend to lie to them a bit. When they’re not lying they just leave out the important details because it suits the authorities to keep ‘some people’ ignorant. In their ignorance ‘some people’ will continue live in fear and rely totally on their rulers to think for them. They will always be easily controlled and they will defend the atrocities inflicted upon mankind because they just don’t know any better. It’s more than just a pity that ‘some people’ are like this. There are no words to describe the damage that ‘some people’ cause to principles like honesty, decency, liberty, freedom, justice etc. If there is an enemy and a need for a war it would be to somehow find a way to allow ‘some people’ to recognise those principles and what they truly represent for everyone instead of abusing them to incite terror.

Joe – I believe you were wrong to belittle human life the way you have with this topic. Maybe you didn’t know it back then but you do now. Those people died (and are still dieing) for no reason other than a few government lies and the only reason you have to continue to belittle their numbers is possibly your own stubborn pride. Either be man enough to admit that you’re wrong or just come out and say that you don’t care. However if you want to support evil then I (and hopefully many others) will not be party to it no matter how you try to justify it. Try to look at it from another angle if you were an Iraqi citizen and Saddam proposed killing the 2000 Iraqis that you mentioned originally for a whole bunch of noble reasons (that were really just lies) then with your current outlook you would support him even when the lies were exposed you would endorse the killing. That’s what your doing…And we all know the American authorities have no problem killing a few thousand American’s for a lie. It’s just whether or not you support them in it?

-- --Col (ceg@winningteam.com), November 01, 2004.

Which is worse - Saddam intentionally killing via starvation or gunshots to the back of the head some 100,000 Iraqi civilians PER YEAR while the UN allows the Baath regime to completely control the Iraqi economy via "food for oil" and thus skim off billions of dollars of oil money for illegal arms deals.... or the USA invading, taking down this corrupt regime and installing a democratic federation?

One side intentionally kills civilians. The other side doesn't intentionally kill them in the process of fighting the remnants of the regime or terrorists.

One side kidnaps and beheads unarmed and innocent civilians. The other side has clear rules of engagement and does not fire on unarmed civilians or drops bombs on civilian targets. Those who do get killed are killed by accident.

You call me bloodthirsty or bad? By WHAT MORAL THEORY, BY WHAT CATHOLIC ETHICAL STANDARD?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 04, 2004.

I think we both know this war was never fought for “human rights” however Saddam’s reputation as a brutal tyrant has been used as a convenient fall back position especially since all the other justifications have proven false. Unfortunately it’s pretty obvious that even this issue is based largely on deception. The case you make is a shining example of lies, deception and propaganda. Many people seem have been well conditioned to believe anything their political masters say. It seems some people will unquestionably and unthinkingly take President Bush and his cronies at their word (even though they have been exposed as prolific liars.)

Your arguments seem to mirror the points made in speeches that are aimed at keeping the masses blaming everything on some enemy whilst remaining ignorant of the truth. An example based on a point that you used comes from a speech in Oct 2002 when Bush said, “The world has also tried economic sanctions and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.” This is just one example that doesn’t quite reflect the reality of what actually happens.

In order to understand how the truth gets twisted by people like Bush people need to broaden their knowledge. Reports from organisations like UNICEF, The UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs, The International Committee of the Red Cross, etc, etc, etc would all tend to dispute such claims made by political leaders like Bush, Blair & Co as being 'misleading'. We already know that most of the claims used to justify waging a war of aggression were manufactured to distort the truth. (In short they were ‘lies’) It might surprise you to know that once again there is scant proof of what you have claimed other that the word of a few habitual liars who are determined to avoid facing up to their own human rights abuses and war crimes.

Contrary to what you have said, the US government knew that the thousands of Iraqi deaths per month due to starvation, lack of medical supplies etc were a direct result of US sanctions. The U.S. government routinely vetoed delivery of goods that UN weapons inspectors had certified as posing no military benefit to Saddam. Studies into the sanctions concluded that the ‘United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter [Iraq].’ There was never any proof that Saddam skimmed off ‘billions of dollars’ of oil money for illegal arms deals (There were some weapons purchased by Iraq – these were not illegal though and there wasn’t any proof produced to show that it amounted to billions of dollars worth. The problem was not with the weapons it was the fact that Iraq sold oil to Syria and that ‘oil sale’ was not authorised by the UN.) This is what George Bush was refering to in his speech. However to understand why it was misleading we need to put it into context. There is evidence that Saddam did sell some oil without UN authority to do so we should also recognise the unrefuted proof that the US held back billions of dollars worth of food and medicine that was paid for by Saddam for the Iraqi people via the food for Oil deal. The United States government also perennially blocked the importation of the necessary equipment and supplies to repair the water system, the electricity system, the sewage system etc. All of which the US targeted in bombings designed to disable Iraqi society at large. To Quote Bishop Thomas Gumbleton & Catholic Bishops ~ "Whatever the intent of these sanctions, the means violates the most basic tenets of Catholic Moral Theology moreover, they violate international law by targeting civilians and the infrastructure necessary for their existence." There’s plenty of evidence and even admissions that the US has and does intentionally target civilians and civilian infrastructure. Even US Soldiers have confirmed that their “clear rules of engagement’ allowed firing on civilians. The round up and torture of Iraqi civilians doesn’t speak to well for the US attitude towards human rights. Also the fact that the US did in-fact use Nuclear and chemical weapons in Iraq doesn’t illicit confidence either. That’s right the US continued to use DU ammunition. Depleted Uranium rounds were fired all over the place in Iraq. They are made from ‘nuclear’ material and give off deadly radiation that does kill and will go on indiscriminately killing ‘civilians’ in Iraq for generations to come. The US did ‘by their own admission’ use napalm in Iraq. Only they have a new name for it now… "Mark 77 firebombs". The US did use over 1000 cluster bombs, these are indiscriminate by their very nature as they do not hit a specific target but shower an area with bomblets. The list goes on…

I don’t think I did actually call you ‘bloodthirsty or bad’… If you are then what I think or say won’t matter. I believe the problem is just that ignorance is so easy to maintain in our society. Too many people blindly trust the authorities to do their thinking for them so they don’t question, they don’t investigate, they don’t reason, and they don’t care.

PS- I'm not saying Saddam is innocent. I just recognise that he is not the only one with questions to answer.

-- Col (ceg@winningteam.com), November 05, 2004.

In order to make a moral judgment 3 factors must be taken into account: the intention, the act itself and the circumstances.

Now you claim that President Bush's intentions where'nt humanitarian in nature. How do you know? All either of us have to go on is the President's own words and the official statements of the US Government. If you want to believe the ENEMIES of the president who DON'T know what is in his heart and don't believe what he says, then fine, but don't call ME a political hack.

How would you know what is right? What criteria of judgement are you using to determine the "real" intention? Michael Moore? Who?

We invaded for lots of reasons, not just one. Right now we're there also for lots of reasons, not just one.

As for the action and circumstances, the USA is still the most moral of nations in its foreign policy - by what and how we do things and by the circumstances involved: we liberate nations and do not enslave whole populations.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), November 11, 2004.