The forgotten victims

I think that answer will be determined by the Iraqis not us. Remember the claims that the U.N. sanctions were causing 5000 child deaths/mth in Iraq? You or I may or may not believe that claim but if you do that total would now be approaching 120,000. Total speculation at this point, as is the question how many more Iraqis would Saddam have killed by this time if he was still in charge and how does that compare to the war body count. That one is real but we will never know the true number and those would apposed the war will inflate it to justify their view that it should have been left up to the U.N.

I’ve thought about these questions and I think they’re very valid. At least we can agree on something.

Well not here now. They are all mute now.

Well, you can always ask kev35…

Viper

I think it was obvious to all here that I was expressing my opinion.

You ask a fair question:

was it worth the consequences?

I think that answer will be determined by the Iraqis not us. Remember the claims that the U.N. sanctions were causing 5000 child deaths/mth in Iraq? You or I may or may not believe that claim but if you do that total would now be approaching 120,000. Total speculation at this point, as is the question how many more Iraqis would Saddam have killed by this time if he was still in charge and how does that compare to the war body count. That one is real but we will never know the true number and those would apposed the war will inflate it to justify their view that it should have been left up to the U.N.

As to the first part of your last comment that:

Few or no one is saying that it was wrong to remove the Hussein regime.

Well not here now. They are all mute now.

Sauron

Viper

Why would I be disappointed because you disagree with me? What a strange remark. The fact that being against the military action to remove Saddam speaks for itself. If you apposed the invasion, you supported him. Actions have consequences.

The fact that you feel you must try and defend those who apposed the invasion but are happy that Saddam is now in the dock, with arguments like You can’t just go on painting everything in black and white and Opposing the invasion is not necessarily synonymous with supporting the Hussein regime is typical of those who sat on their hands and did nothing to protect those folks who were being slaughtered in Yugoslavia until someone with balls said enough.

I notice that no one has started a direct discussion about the results of last weeks election in Iraq. One gets the idea that even mentioning it would somehow be an admission that removing Saddam just might, maybe, somehow have been the best solution.

Sauon

At least now something positive has come out of the Iraq disaster & many more are aware of the non-Iraqi victims of Saddam’s regime.

Let’s hope that Hussein’s trial as well as the effort to bring the Shias and the Sunnis closer together can contribute to some substantial progress in Iraq.

Fareed Zakaria: Finally, a Smart Iraq Strategy

Have to agree,viper.It’s not the removal & trial of the Saddam regime that many people oppose.It’s the war itself.While everyone agrees that it’s a good thing Saddam is facing a trial; it’s the cost & the way it has occured that is objectionable.
Let’s be honest with ourselves.
The trial is only an extra result of the war & occupation.As Bush & Blair made clear,it was never about prosecuting the regime for crimes against different peoples.

At least now something positive has come out of the Iraq disaster & many more are aware of the non-Iraqi victims of Saddam’s regime.

What we all know, is that without the invasion of Iraq he would not be going to trial for his crimes. He would still be killing people. As many people (including many on this forum) were strongly apposed to the Iraq invasion, thereby supporting his rule, it will be interesting to see how much support he receives now.

Sauron

There will always be people oppused to any war…no matter how just.
It’s easier to say “No” to war than to be willing so go into harm’s way…no matter what the cause.
BTW: There was a large segment of the US population against fighting the American Civil War (1961-65). The opposition party (the Democrats) were content to let the South succede and let slavery exist for another 50 years.
Of course there was a large isolationist movement against US involvement in WWII until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s foolish declaration of war against the US.
Many people find it easy to forget Saddam’s crimes…or the fact that the US was spending $1 billion a year enforcing the UN mandates and “No Fly Zones” designed to protect the Kurds and other Iraqis.

Was this war worth it? That will be decided in the history books. If it helps foster democracy in the region, history might be kind to Mr. Bush.

I am not so sure that Saddam’s use of chemical weapons during his attacks on Iran have been forgotten anymore than the chemical attacks he carried out on his own people.

What we all know, is that without the invasion of Iraq he would not be going to trial for his crimes. He would still be killing people. As many people (including many on this forum) were strongly apposed to the Iraq invasion, thereby supporting his rule, it will be interesting to see how much support he receives now.

Sauron