Quote: Originally Posted by Zzarchov
That report is more than a little biased.
It rightly includes carbomb fatalities etc under insurgents, and air strikes under coalition.
But any "incidental" deaths related to there being a war in general are all on the coalition side. It takes two sides to wage a war.
Statistics don't lie, but you can sure lie about what those statistics are.
And in the west the price of life was about $750 last I checked, as in thats what it cost to have someone killed on average (USA and USD). In Afghanistan life is free, just say you saw the person in a homosexual relationship, bam, two people killed for free.
In the US all you have to say is I saw those guys murder this other guy and bam, they are on death row. I agree many countries lack basic rights and freedoms, but lying to get someone killed can happen almost anywhere the death penalty exists.
I agree it takes two sides to wage war. But in this case, one side lied and manipulated to commit a war crime:
Quote: Lessons of Iraq war underscore importance of UN Charter - Annan
16 September 2004 – Secretary-General Kofi Annan believes that the Iraq war in 2003 demonstrated the need for the international community to address the issue of preventive action in the context of Charter principles and showed the importance of joint efforts on matters of use of force, a United Nations spokesman said today.
Responding to media questions about the Secretary-General's comments in a BBC interview, spokesman Fred Eckhard told a press briefing in New York that in his remarks the Secretary-General had reiterated his well-known position that the military action against Iraq was not in conformity with the UN Charter.
In the interview, Mr. Annan was repeatedly asked whether the war was "illegal." "Yes," he finally said, "I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view, and from the Charter point of view it was illegal."
The Secretary-General said the war in Iraq and its aftermath had brought home painful lessons about the importance of resolving use-of-force issues jointly through the UN. "I think that in the end everybody is...
Quote has been trimmed
Before Annan was SG, his specialty was international law. But the SG is essentially a figurehead with limited powers, especially when compared to the leader of a military superpower.
It could be argued that Iraq's leadership was negligent and somwhat resposible for the US led invasion. But when the US declared war, Iraq was more or less in compliance with UN resolutions, their leaders were telling the truth, they were cooperating and remaining disarmament issues were within months of resolution.
The American government has consistently manipulated perceptions of events regarding Iraq. Most people know today that Iraq did not possess WMD stockpiles when the US invaded. But most people have not realized that that also means Iraq probably hadn't had WMDs for some time.
UNSCOM knew with a high degree of certainty that Iraq did not possess WMD stockpiles back in 1998, five years before the invasion.
Quote:
Iraq says the U.N. is confusing "the major and the minor issues."
TARIQ AZIZ, Deputy Prime Minister, Iraq: UNSCOM is back to its old games, to its old tricks, games of confusing the major issues and the minor issues, since this is the wish of the American administration to perpetuate the situation, to prolong the current situation, to keep the sanctions on the people of Iraq. As long as this is the American wish, you are serving the American policy.
TOM BEARDEN: Butler promptly left Baghdad. Talking to reporters at the London airport, on his way back to New York, Butler said he was mystified by the latest developments.
AMBASSADOR RICHARD BUTLER: It's a slightly weird thing, because, as I said, we're doing quite well in missile and chemical. I mean, we were getting there. If this was a five-lap race, you know, we were halfway into the fifth lap. Why stop the race when you're getting towards the finishing line? I don't know.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middl...tler_8-6a.html
Quote has been trimmed
Unless proving a negative is a logical impossibility and Iraq was faced with 100% sanctions until they could prove they did not have WMDs with 100% certainty.
Once Iraq realized that a 100% certainty regarding proving a negative has no finish line, they stopped cooperating.
The US and UK used their positions in the UNSC to maintain crippling economic sanctions long after they had served their original purpose, to bomb Iraq with impunity and used UNSCOM to spy on Iraq's legal defense systems.
Quote:
ACTION ALERT:
Spying in Iraq: From Fact to Allegation September 24, 2002
Nothing makes a newspaper prouder than a juicy foreign-policy scoop. Except, it seems, when the scoop ends up raising awkward questions about a U.S. administration's drive for war.
Back in 1999, major papers ran front-page investigative stories revealing that the CIA had covertly used U.N. weapons inspectors to spy on Iraq for the U.S.'s own intelligence purposes. "United States officials said today that American spies had worked undercover on teams of United Nations arms inspectors," the New York Times reported (1/7/99). According to the Washington Post (3/2/99), the U.S. "infiltrated agents and espionage equipment for three years into United Nations arms control teams in Iraq to eavesdrop on the Iraqi military without the knowledge of the U.N. agency." Undercover U.S. agents "carried out an ambitious spying operation designed to penetrate Iraq's...
Quote has been trimmed
When the allied forces crushed the Iraqi military (killing 30,000 mostly involuntary conscripts), they immediate secured Iraq's oil infrastructure. While allied forces were guarding refineries and pipelines, anarchy ruled Iraq. Between the invasion and resulting anarchy, tens of thousands Iraqis died.
Up until then, there weren't any insurgents in Iraq. Who was responsible for that death and destruction?
Culpability for civilians deaths cannot be attributed equally between the two sides if one side had little to no choice in war and the other side lied and manipulated to start an illegal war for profit.
The side which now resists a foreign occupation resulting from an illegal invasion cannot be held as responsible for the consequences of war as the foreign invaders.
I would judge the leaders of the allied forces 100% responsible for the civilians deaths resulting from their military invasion forces and 50% responsible for the deaths caused by the adversaries of their military forces because of context.
Last edited by earth_as_one; May 18th, 2007 at 08:07 PM..