Bush still just doesn't get it

[LesterDC]

Is Canada in Darfur? Is it waiting for the "international community" to do something, like Rwanda? Good luck with that.

Like I said, we might not be doing a very good job at it but the concept is very viable to me. Anyhow, as little as it was, Canada did have a role in the Darfur Crisis

[LesterDC]

Again...more rationalizations. You can't have it both ways when it comes to an outcome that includes killing people. The US did not invade Iraq by itself, and the legal foundation is found in UN resolutions going back to the Gulf War.

Yes, I can see that point. However, it still stands - that wasn't what the Bush administration told the American people

[eyeball]

Bush still just doesn't get it

Sure he does, he just doesn't care and neither do many of his supporters. They care to the extent they need to keep up the appearance of legitimacy and nobility from time to time but that's about it.

In any case I'm to jaded to really feel the impact of hypocrisy anymore but irony is another matter altogether.

Bush: ‘Outside forces tend to divide people up.’

BUSH: A clear lesson I learned in the museum was that outside forces that tend to divide people up inside their country are unbelievably counterproductive. In other words, people came from other countries — I guess you’d call them colonialists — and they pitted one group of people against another.

[Topaz]

Ok ,guys lets go this way then. Bush is the Commander -in-Chief of the military and I would think he would know everything that goes on with the military and within this war of his. How many Iraqis have died at the hands of the US military? Innocent people, not having anything to do but try to get through each day while their country is at war. I'm not talking about anything that other people have done to kill these Iraqis, I'm talking about the US military directly responsible for their deaths, which turn the Iraq people against the US. The ten Commandments rule is .. Thou shall not kill .....anyone who has order an invasion knows people are going to get killed, anyone who orders bombing on a city knows people are going to get killed and that is were Bush is in denial. Perhaps the coke and the alcohol HAS fried his brain and when he leaves office and writes his book to justify his actions maybe he'll realized then what he did for POLICIAL REASONS!

[M.Dancer]

. How many Iraqis have died at the hands of the US military?

Probably less than have died at the hand of their fellow iraqis.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Gulf War had nothing to do with harbouring terrorists and WMD's.. Like I said, why couldn't Bush tell the truth?

That wasn't the point....the Gulf War meets you subjective criteria for international permission to bomb men, women, and children, and that includes Canadian strike aircraft. It was the foundation for all that followed, including terrorists and "WMDs", the very same "WMDs" that Clinton told us about in 1998.

Bush repeated the same "lie" as Clinton or Chretien, but also decided to do something about it in the wake of terrorist attacks, without which the invasion of Iraq doesn't happen.

[bush_cheney2004]

Like I said, we might not be doing a very good job at it but the concept is very viable to me. Anyhow, as little as it was, Canada did have a role in the Darfur Crisis

Makes sense to me.....maybe we can have labels..."Good Bombs"....and "Bad Bombs".

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok ,guys lets go this way then. Bush is the Commander -in-Chief of the military and I would think he would know everything that goes on with the military and within this war of his. How many Iraqis have died at the hands of the US military? Innocent people, not having anything to do but try to get through each day while their country is at war. I'm not talking about anything that other people have done to kill these Iraqis, I'm talking about the US military directly responsible for their deaths, which turn the Iraq people against the US.

Thousands less than the number of "innocent" Iraqis reported to have died by the very same detractors before the invasion (e.g. UN sanctions, domestic unrest).

The ten Commandments rule is .. Thou shall not kill .....anyone who has order an invasion knows people are going to get killed, anyone who orders bombing on a city knows people are going to get killed and that is were Bush is in denial.

No he's not.....killing isn't the same as "murdering". Consider that people are "killed" every day regardless of what Bush does, right here in Norte America, let alone Iraq.

Perhaps the coke and the alcohol HAS fried his brain and when he leaves office and writes his book to justify his actions maybe he'll realized then what he did for POLICIAL REASONS!

Sounds good to me......he will ride off into the sunset proclaiming that he "Did it MY way".

[Oleg Bach]

There is no hypocrisy..."murder" is a very specific idea....legally and "morally".

Bush may have killed inadvertantly - he may have even murdered on mass with out real intent or forthought...But he is totally correct within this partial transcript provided...I realize for a fact that our elite have one rule - they may run you into the ground emotionally and financially...and socially to get you out of the way of their agendas - BUT there is one code of conduct and it's the primary rule - YOU DO NOT MURDER... Years ago during a dispute with the "upper class" _ I was arrested in a lawyers office - by surpirse....I asked the group of highrollers a question as they cuffed me and took me out the back way....."What are you going to do now - kill me?" - the answer was "We don't do that sort of thing" - I believe that this statement was right across the board for all of these guys...NOW - if I was in anyother country and caused them a problem - I would be vulture food......To murder as a way of life is as BARBARIC as you get...Take my wife - tax me into the poor house - steal my children - just don't kill me...That is the difference between our people and THEM - If Cheney was as evil as some insist - there would be thousands of bodies scattered everywhere across this nation and the USA...we are the good guys!

[moderateamericain]

Less that ten percent of people killed in Iraq through violence is due to US troops.

[ReeferMadness]

Less that ten percent of people killed in Iraq through violence is due to US troops.

72.9847% of statistics are pulled out of people's asses. Until you can quote a reliable source, I'm assuming yours if one of them.

[M.Dancer]

72.9847% of statistics are pulled out of people's asses. Until you can quote a reliable source, I'm assuming yours if one of them.

This is as reliable as it gets.

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

A quick glance at the months shows that the vast majority of violence iagainst civilians s iraqis killing iraqis.

[ReeferMadness]

While I found your post most amusing (no sarcasm there), I do not believe that we have to wait for a country to obtain WMD's before we should take action. Mind you, this does not mean that my philosophy indefinitely converges with Bush policies. As much as you want to justify it, lying to the population is just always the easiest way out. Anyhow, the dilemma stands as this: should we put our country's reputation at stake for intervening or should we sit back and see what the international repercussions will be if we do not act. Surely we don't want Iraq to be marching off to Kuwait again.. Especially if they successfully got their hands on some actual WMD's..

I think there are huge double standards here. Some countries can run around invading countries as they please. Others become members of the axis of evil

There need to be strict, internationally agreed standards around interfering in another country's affairs - such as:

• reliable evidence that the local population wants us there
  
• reliable evidence that mass murder is taking place or is about to take place
  
• a solid indication that the impact of the action on the local population will be less than if we do nothing
  
• an international force that contains a significant number of soldiers with whom the local population can identify (e.g. common culture or common faith)
  

Also, there needs to be some way of avoiding the WMD hypocrisy. It seems like there is a serious double standard that the US with its horrendous stockpiles of WMD's runs around deciding who should and shouldn't have them. And there are probably some tens of millions of people in the Middle East who wonder why it's OK that Israel have a huge stockpile of nukes but nobody else is allowed.

One of the big problems in international politics is the (perfectly understandable) perception that it's just a case of might makes right.

[bush_cheney2004]

...One of the big problems in international politics is the (perfectly understandable) perception that it's just a case of might makes right.

That's because it does.

[M.Dancer]

I think there are huge double standards here. Some countries can run around invading countries as they please. Others become members of the axis of evil

We already have a good standard. National self interest.

[ReeferMadness]

This is as reliable as it gets.

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

A quick glance at the months shows that the vast majority of violence iagainst civilians s iraqis killing iraqis.

All I see is a breakdown between ISF (which I presume means Iraqi Security Forces) and civilians. I can't find where it says who they were killed by. You might be seeing what you want to see.

I also notice this :

Actual totals for Iraqi deaths are much higher than the numbers recorded on this site.

Meaning these statistics aren't worth toilet paper.

I also notice that there are very detailed statistics on the US casualties but no accurate numbers of Iraqis killed - an indication that the coalition doesn't really care how many 3rd world civilians die.

Finally, I should point out that under international law, the coalition has a responsibility to maintain order and rebuild. This means that the coalition is reponsible for those violent deaths that occurred because of the failure to maintain order and also those due to the lack of infrastructure destroyed in the war.

[ReeferMadness]

We already have a good standard. National self interest.

A very honest answer. But then when the people who suffer because of policies of western "national self interest" lash out at us, we lie to ourselves saying "They hate us because of our freedom".

Maybe we should be be replacing national self interest with enlighted self interest.

[LesterDC]

I think there are huge double standards here. Some countries can run around invading countries as they please. Others become members of the axis of evil

There need to be strict, internationally agreed standards around interfering in another country's affairs - such as:

• reliable evidence that the local population wants us there
  
• reliable evidence that mass murder is taking place or is about to take place
  
• a solid indication that the impact of the action on the local population will be less than if we do nothing
  
• an international force that contains a significant number of soldiers with whom the local population can identify (e.g. common culture or common faith)
  

Also, there needs to be some way of avoiding the WMD hypocrisy. It seems like there is a serious double standard that the US with its horrendous stockpiles of WMD's runs around deciding who should and shouldn't have them. And there are probably some tens of millions of people in the Middle East who wonder why it's OK that Israel have a huge stockpile of nukes but nobody else is allowed.

One of the big problems in international politics is the (perfectly understandable) perception that it's just a case of might makes right.

Or we could have world governments agree to international terms through the UN... and if you break these terms, you are in trouble

[bush_cheney2004]

Or we could have world governments agree to international terms through the UN... and if you break these terms, you are in trouble

But what would that mean...what kind of...trouble?

Who will enforce the...trouble?

[LesterDC]

But what would that mean...what kind of...trouble?

Who will enforce the...trouble?

The use of sanctions and peacekeeping forces doesn't sound like a bad idea

[M.Dancer]

All I see is a breakdown between ISF (which I presume means Iraqi Security Forces) and civilians. I can't find where it says who they were killed by. You might be seeing what you want to see.

.

You didn't look very hard.

09/30/06 Baquba - Eight Iraqis were killed, including two policemen, in attacks in and around the violence-marred city of Baquba, 60 kilometers north of Baghdad, on Saturday.

Now you suppose those people were killed by whom?

I also notice that there are very detailed statistics on the US casualties but no accurate numbers of Iraqis killed - an indication that the coalition doesn't really care how many 3rd world civilians die.

What it shows is the US keeps detailed records and the Iraqis don't. The coalition doesn't control iraqi statisticians.

Finally, I should point out that under international law, the coalition has a responsibility to maintain order and rebuild. This means that the coalition is reponsible for those violent deaths that occurred because of the failure to maintain order and also those due to the lack of infrastructure destroyed in the war.

That is an exrapolation that defies logic. It would be like blaming the Ontario for street crime. Anway the coalition agrees they have a responsibility to maintain order hence the surge which worked. They aren;t however responsible for tha actions of ceriminals and terrorists or Lord Voldemort

[bush_cheney2004]

The use of sanctions and peacekeeping forces doesn't sound like a bad idea

Been there...done that. Not too successful without a sledgehammer in the back pocket.

[LesterDC]

Been there...done that. Not too successful without a sledgehammer in the back pocket.

yes, the idea is good.. but apathy makes it somewhat ineffectual.. there is still hope and potential though

[moderateamericain]

72.9847% of statistics are pulled out of people's asses. Until you can quote a reliable source, I'm assuming yours if one of them.

http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx

But hey, I would not take your word for it either.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Even with this completely skewed website

The problem is they make it seem like its all the US. But the reality is US troops have probabaly directly killed about 9 to 10 thousand Civilians.

Combatants is another matter all together. Hostile Combatants Ive heard numbers as high as 55 thousand killed. When you compare that to the 4100 or so US Servicemen who have died. Its like a 13 to 1 kill ratio. In otherwords Us troops are taking down a couple of squads of Insurgents for every one that dies.

Edited December 11, 2008 by moderateamericain

[Michael Hardner]

QUOTE(ReeferMadness @ Dec 10 2008, 10:05 PM) *

Finally, I should point out that under international law, the coalition has a responsibility to maintain order and rebuild. This means that the coalition is reponsible for those violent deaths that occurred because of the failure to maintain order and also those due to the lack of infrastructure destroyed in the war.

RM, am I wrong or does this also imply that the US needs to stay in Iraq until all civil unrest is gone ?