keel

Where did you get that figure, tens of thousands, from?

Keel

ABCDiamond

Hmm Interesting point.
Was a "War" actually declared ?
As, if so, the "Terms of War", whatever they are, might say something different.

This is getting out of my depth Too many questions, not enough answers !

ABCDiamond

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
says: between 8,581 and 10,430


http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/061203D.shtml
says: At least 3,240 civilians died across Iraq during a month of war, including 1,896 in Baghdad, according to a five-week Associated Press investigation


But also, from the other side:
On March 28 1988, Saddam uses chemical weapons against the Kurdish town of Halabja, killing an estimated 5,000 civilians.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...106958,00.html

How many future Iraqis will now NOT die ?

bondipom

My point is that war causes civilian deaths. By your definition of terror conventional warfare is terrorism. It is never as black and white as people would like to make out.

The future of Iraq is at a crossroads. If the coalition is not careful the country could implode into a Balkans style civil war.

Florida_03

"Unlawful" is the key separating term...so my question remains...

Which Law??? (or whose Law??? for those so inclined)

keel

The War may be classed as unlawful under present international war, but at one time there was a definition called a "just war".

I think it became obsolete when the UN was formed in 1944 ( by that time the term a just war was wearing thin, Japan-China, Italy-Abyssinia and Hun-everyone).

But going off the old term a just war was one you entered for the greater good with no material gain to yourselves eg. un peacekeepers. Going by that defination the UK and Australia engaged in a just war as they have gained no material benefit from it.

This is what I believe anyway.

I had a briefing after the first gulf war ( whilst in the Army)and the casualty count was something like 100,000 civilians (estimated).

Saddam has been estimated to have murdered a greater number after that war.

so you can see how easy it will sit on Tony's shoulder that he was working for the greater good.

Today is the first anniversary of the present war. I wonder if anyone has worked out how many Saddam would have murdered in the last 12 months?

Keel

OzTennis

So if Iraq didn't have as much oil as it has they still would have gone in?

Sorry, it wasn't about oil, it was the WMD's which a year later they still haven't found.

This is the fundamental problem - the people of the allied countries were 'sold' the idea of invading Iraq because of the WMD's which supposedly had a range which would extend to Israel and bases in Cyprus.

And the Iraqi's seem to be doing a pretty good job of murdering each other and Allied soldiers over the last 12 months so who knows whether fewer or more would have died? George Bush senior had his chance to topple Saddam but for various reasons decided to keep him in power - which George jnr might have just done something about to please daddy!

OzTennis

keel

Come along now OzTennis if it was about oil thats for the yanks not the brits/oz's( where not seeing that business) and as for WMD did you ever believe that?

So What reason does that leave for Brits/oz except doing the right thing (just war).

How much oil is in Afgahnistan? Seirra leone? Bosnia? Kosover?
All places we've "gone in " for the greater good.

Yes I'm From Ashington, proud of it.

OzTennis

Settle down, I was being a tad sarcastic (but they don't have a smiley for that). All the Bush/Blair broadcasts I saw justifying the war mentioned WMD's, WMD's, WMD's (they used the same term time and time again). I am not saying the invasion wasn't perhaps justified on other grounds, I am saying this is how it was presented to the people. Even when the UN weapons inspectors didn't find any Bush chose to ignore this and to me seemed to push ahead with a 'we'll find them when we get there' attitude. As to why Australia and Britain joined USA I'll leave that for others to comment on. Why didn't Germany and France among others think it was not 'just' if it was so obvious?

Nothing intended about Ashington BTW, I was just curious because you mentioned the ex-mining place. Are you a Mag?

OzTennis

keel

OzTennis your a lot faster at typing than me. I'm gan to bed now.

"Its good to talk". I'm enjoying this, look forward to it next time.

Goodnight all.

Keel

callé

theres a BIG difference in innocent people getting killed in a conflict if that is not the intention than in innocent people getting killed on purpose (terrorism). Even if no wmd's are ever found you cannot deny that Sadaam is a very brutal man that killed many for no good reason and should be stopped. I personally dont like any of the killing. One way or another. But I do understand that unfortunately it happens sometimes when you are fighting to end the killing that is done on purpose. Its all sad though.

jandjuk

this was my primary objection the war. I didn't oppose the war because I didn't think Saddam should be removed.

I opposed it because Bush & Blair were obviously lying about their justifications, they didn't observe international law, and the precedent this would set for future wars.

And I didn't believe all the options had been explored.

Megalania

"Allah will crush them." - Anyone seen Allah?

Bashir says Muslims will strike Australia

Muslim leader warns against Aust attack

bondipom

Afghanistan was purely about removing the Taliban as revenge for supporting Al Quaeda. Kosovo and Bosnia were seen as conflicts that should not be happening in modern Europe. The intervention in Somalia was to prevent another dysfunctional state. A grand failure in intervention and a warning to what can happen in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In Afghanistan the coalition only controls Kabul and has neither the will nor the firepower to control the rest of the worlds premier heroin producing country.

One of the telling factors when the coalition took control of Baghdad was the immediate protection of the oil ministry whilst hospitals, museums containing artefacts from the cradle of civilisation were looted.

BTW Sierra Leone is about control of gemstones.

Vegemite Kids

Personally, I think until everyone (terrorists, Govts, religious leaders et al) stop trying to get the last word / blow then the world will continue to have problems.

99.9% of all interviews I've seen, everybody, regardless of ethnicity, politics, etc, agree that violence is ultimately not the answer, even the fantics seem to admit this, but and its a big but, they see it as a means to an end and when they achieve that end, they say they will stop all violence. Then the other side say the same but as only one can get the last blow / word, its a never ending cycle.

If the terrorists or whoever think they have a legit cause, then they should wise up and start a publicity campaign, go for non-violent protest and let the world see the other side as the aggressors. But unfortunately they dont seem to be smart enough to think long term. Its all about short term winning a victory today even if it sets back their supposed long term goals.