English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

According to a report published on the BBC world news website, (Iraqi war death toll 'at 655,000', 11th October 2006) "An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have died since 2003 who might still be alive but for the US-led invasion, according to a survey by a US university."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6040054.stm


Additionally The US Senate Intelligence Committee recently found no evidence of links between the regime of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, plus lack of wmd evidence. Full (public version) committee Report (8th September 2006) here: http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

2006-10-11 02:41:59 · 16 answers · asked by Dr Who 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

16 answers

Actually, quite recently a report has come out from the UN special rapporteur on torture saying the situation in country in terms of torture is worse now than it was before the war, and in terms of infrastructure, key utilities and general security it's pretty clear that this is the case too.

This demolishes the final backup excuse that Bush and Blair have been using (after the idea of WMDs and of the bullshit al-Queda link have been discredited) - that whatever the collateral damage, that Iraq is a better place without Saddam ruling, and it means that any question of it being justified doesn't have to weigh the hundreds of thousands of dead against the benefits of having removed him - as these are clearly negligible.

It was particularly the luridly disgusting methods of torture that Bush relied upon in his state of the Union address in 2003 to mobilise opinion for his ill fated adventure, use of electric drills and hot irons were among the things he mentioned. As the overall torture situation is now worse according to the world's foremost authority on it, and bodies are regularly found in Baghdad bearing wounds that correlate with these practises today, the justification is now completely bankrupt.

I would add that while a utilitarian analysis of the argument to go to war might engage with the idea that some amount of death could be justified if it resulted in a demonstrably greater good for a greater number of people. Personally I have no truck with this kind of thing. I don't think any person has the right to make a judgement call that the death of another person can be excused for the greater good - a humble acknowledgement of our own human fallibility requires that we recognise that we are not competent to make that judgement. Messianic leaders like Bush and Blair have never understood this concept, and that is what makes them particularly dangerous in positions of unchallenged power.

2006-10-11 03:15:58 · answer #1 · answered by David C 2 · 0 0

Well,

I am not a pro war guy, but your question in wrong.

There were a LOT more than 3 politions that approved the war, a majority of Democrats (Including Hillary) voted for it as well.

I hope the Iraqi people find some peace out of all of this.

Peace!

2006-10-11 02:45:39 · answer #2 · answered by C 7 · 1 0

i don't discover it thrilling, i discover it disgusting. I definitely have widely used all alongside that the reason of the invasion of Iraq wasn't to unfastened the Iraqi people, yet extremely it became an aggessive pass by using the globalists that have hijacked the Pentagon and the White homestead. that's all approximately stealing the oil and water factors in the middle East. Israel is heavily in touch in the back of the curtain in protecting a U.S. occupation of the middle East. that's extremely practically as though the U.S. troops are getting used to do Israel's grimy paintings.

2016-10-16 01:53:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Going to war was decided upon by hundreds of polititians. Also, if you give us the death toll estimates (people who "might" still be alive) then give us the life toll as well. How many people are alive now that "might" have been killed if there was no invasion? How many people now have schools and electricity and freedom to vote and freedom to walk the streets without worrying about their government coming and killing them and raping their women? Are you saying the everything was just fine with Saddam in power?

2006-10-11 02:57:50 · answer #4 · answered by BigRichGuy 6 · 0 1

No, this was/is not justified, even after the biggest protest in world history - all this allegedly to give them "democracy" even after more than 90% of iraqis want them to leave.

Watch out though, they are at it again with Iran and this time they want to use nukes.

2006-10-11 03:04:20 · answer #5 · answered by Nothing to say? 3 · 0 0

War can never be justified. It legalises murder, that's all.
The people of America and England played their part as well. If it had gone well they would have been parading in the streets and pummelling the anti war protesters with scorn and worse.

2006-10-11 02:55:07 · answer #6 · answered by Christine H 7 · 1 1

Of course it wasn't justified - George W. Bush and Tony Bliar lied to get that invasion going and they have that blood on their hands. Both of them should be dragged out of office, sent to the ICC court and prosecuted for their War Crimes...!

2006-10-11 02:48:02 · answer #7 · answered by TruthHurts 3 · 2 1

A hell of a lot more died a more grusome death unreported due to Sadam. so ignore any silly reports from so called experts.

2006-10-12 23:02:57 · answer #8 · answered by GLYN D 3 · 0 0

It's terrible. Many members of Congress went along with it but they were misled by the lies of the Bush administration. Even Colin Powell was lied to and it cost him his reputation. I hope we get out soon. Iraq has been destroyed by this stupid war.

2006-10-11 02:48:23 · answer #9 · answered by notyou311 7 · 2 1

There's no justification in killing innocent people in Iraq. What the US and UK set out to do i.e. bring peace and stability, hasn't been achieved. Instead there's killings and abuse of people, suicide bombers and kidnappings of foreign people. This war is illegal and Bush and Blair should go and see the reality of their "fight against terrorism"- They are the real terrorists.

2006-10-11 02:51:00 · answer #10 · answered by Squirrel 4 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers