[Converse Rocker]

Kill the civilians we're meant to be protecting. Makes sense.

[Fatfis]

(Original post by user1-4)
The kids being shot for picking up rocks is more well knows for Palestine, but it's true for Iraq aswell. There've been Iraqi refugees who've spoken about this and former rapper Lowkey (Iraqi) has mentioned how kids who picked up rocks have been shot at and why his parents had to leave Iraq.
500,000+ civilians killed is a well known figure??? How could you need me to give you a source for that. It is the figure that was leaked a while ago by the US. You are probably talking about the propoganda figures of what 130,000? Even if that figure were to be true, it is still 130,000 too many.

500,000 is a disputed figure for the total number of casualties in the War not just civilians Lancet survey puts it at around 600000 but wikileaks and Iraq body count estimate 150000 total casualties - all agree ~ 80% we're civilian, there is no reason to simply assert a larger figure, even if it is 130,000, as you say it is still a terrible loss of innocent human life, but there is a serious question to be asked of the consequences of an invasion not happening in Iraq or in fact no military interventions by the west at all, Saddam Hussein would still be in control of Iraq - under whom approximately 1 million Iraqis had already been executed and piled into the mass graves around Iraq, a man who authorised the use of chemical weapons on his own population and committed genocide against the Kurdish and marsh Arabs and engaged Iran in an unprovoked war leading to the deaths of another million lives. He would have successfully annexed Kuwait - a sovereign state, and would be its owner by force, he would likely have acquired nuclear capabilities. This was a dangerous tyrant who was clearly insane and capable of inflicting many future atrocities and those of us who support this intervention can only do so if we think it in effect saved lives obviously, the west not intervening militarily doesn't mean nothing happens it merely means something else happens and by inaction onlookers are still morally implicated in the outcome, and it is an important charge to press against the anti war position that they actually analyse the potential consequences of inaction and actually consider if it would have been a better world.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Fatfis]

(Original post by Maker)
Afghanistan seems to attract the sort of people who thinks force is the only solution to defeating the Taliban.

A bit of history, the Soviets used all the most vicious methods to try to defeat the anti communists forces including bombing civilians, torturing and executing suspects and massive military force and still got kicked out.

Negotiation with the Taliban is also an outlandish notion - They have no interest in discussion as part of their fundamentalist nature they do not compromise, the assertion of shariah law in the form of brutally stoning any woman who does not conform to their notions of correct living, how do you negotiate with beings such as these, they are of one mind and the only way we are going to get any peace is by total capitulation which isn't a very inviting scenario.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Darth Stewie]

(Original post by user1-4)
The kids being shot for picking up rocks is more well knows for Palestine, but it's true for Iraq aswell. There've been Iraqi refugees who've spoken about this and former rapper Lowkey (Iraqi) has mentioned how kids who picked up rocks have been shot at and why his parents had to leave Iraq.
500,000+ civilians killed is a well known figure??? How could you need me to give you a source for that. It is the figure that was leaked a while ago by the US. You are probably talking about the propoganda figures of what 130,000? Even if that figure were to be true, it is still 130,000 too many.

Judging by the fact that since 1987 only 1612 Palestinian minors have been killed (most of those due to collateral damage because of the brave Palestinian freedom fighters who put military targets in the middle of civilian areas) and Palestine has a population of over 4 million i don't really think Israel shoot every kid who throws rocks at them do they? otherwise a lot more would be dead.

and has Lowkey (Iraqi) ever actually been to Iraq? Also his parents who came to the UK before 1986 would be recalling Iraqi kids being shot by Persians, since that's who Iraq were at war with in the 80's.

Well if it's so well known you wont have a problem sourcing it? If you're referring to the wiki leaks figure was 66,081 civilians although that was in 2010 so it will be higher by now and that wasn't exclusively US soldiers that was the total deaths in hot zones where the US were present.

[Maker]

(Original post by Fatfis)
Negotiation with the Taliban is also an outlandish notion - They have no interest in discussion as part of their fundamentalist nature they do not compromise, the assertion of shariah law in the form of brutally stoning any woman who does not conform to their notions of correct living, how do you negotiate with beings such as these, they are of one mind and the only way we are going to get any peace is by total capitulation which isn't a very inviting scenario.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Every one negotiates if it is in their interest to do so. You need to separate the small scale from the bigger picture.

[Nick100]

It would be over because the entire population would be dead. That isn't the victory anyone wants though.

[Fatfis]

(Original post by Maker)
Every one negotiates if it is in their interest to do so. You need to separate the small scale from the bigger picture.

What in your eyes would ring in the Taliban to negotiation, what demands would they have that we could meet, the error it's always demands the impossible, and demands it at gunpoint.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Maker]

(Original post by Fatfis)
What in your eyes would ring in the Taliban to negotiation, what demands would they have that we could meet, the error it's always demands the impossible, and demands it at gunpoint.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Don't be so naive.

Every organisation has to have people negotiating and compromising so they can work together to achieve mutual objectives.

If the members of the Taliban did not do that, they will all be running around pursuing their own individual agendas and the Coalition could mop them up in a few weeks. Similarly, the Taliban knows it cannot always use fire power to achieve their political aims and have to negotiate with other Afghans and the Coalition.

You seem to be blinded by some of their more extreme actions and not seeing the bigger picture.

[user1-4]

(Original post by Fatfis)
500,000 is a disputed figure for the total number of casualties in the War not just civilians Lancet survey puts it at around 600000 but wikileaks and Iraq body count estimate 150000 total casualties - all agree ~ 80% we're civilian, there is no reason to simply assert a larger figure, even if it is 130,000, as you say it is still a terrible loss of innocent human life, but there is a serious question to be asked of the consequences of an invasion not happening in Iraq or in fact no military interventions by the west at all, Saddam Hussein would still be in control of Iraq - under whom approximately 1 million Iraqis had already been executed and piled into the mass graves around Iraq, a man who authorised the use of chemical weapons on his own population and committed genocide against the Kurdish and marsh Arabs and engaged Iran in an unprovoked war leading to the deaths of another million lives. He would have successfully annexed Kuwait - a sovereign state, and would be its owner by force, he would likely have acquired nuclear capabilities. This was a dangerous tyrant who was clearly insane and capable of inflicting many future atrocities and those of us who support this intervention can only do so if we think it in effect saved lives obviously, the west not intervening militarily doesn't mean nothing happens it merely means something else happens and by inaction onlookers are still morally implicated in the outcome, and it is an important charge to press against the anti war position that they actually analyse the potential consequences of inaction and actually consider if it would have been a better world.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

well saddam didn't actually have any WMDs. Also it is unfair and hypocritical for USA to go around preventing countrys from having WMDs when they themselves have them.

Also the issue with Iraq is like how the issue with Vietnam was. They had problems, yes, but USA only made them a whole lot worse. Many Iraqis preferred life under Hussein than when USA got involved to dethrone him. Look at the state Iraq is in now and look at how developed it was when Hussein was in power. Look at how bad Vietnam was after USA got involved. History repeats itself and if you can't learn from the past (USA ALWAYS make a bigger problem) then there is no going forwards.

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
If you're referring to the wiki leaks figure was 66,081 civilians although that was in 2010 so it will be higher by now and that wasn't exclusively US soldiers that was the total deaths in hot zones where the US were present.

i'm referring to the leak the group anonymous made

[ryanh327]

(Original post by Fatfis)
500,000 is a disputed figure for the total number of casualties in the War not just civilians Lancet survey puts it at around 600000 but wikileaks and Iraq body count estimate 150000 total casualties - all agree ~ 80% we're civilian, there is no reason to simply assert a larger figure, even if it is 130,000, as you say it is still a terrible loss of innocent human life, but there is a serious question to be asked of the consequences of an invasion not happening in Iraq or in fact no military interventions by the west at all, Saddam Hussein would still be in control of Iraq - under whom approximately 1 million Iraqis had already been executed and piled into the mass graves around Iraq, a man who authorised the use of chemical weapons on his own population and committed genocide against the Kurdish and marsh Arabs and engaged Iran in an unprovoked war leading to the deaths of another million lives. He would have successfully annexed Kuwait - a sovereign state, and would be its owner by force, he would likely have acquired nuclear capabilities. This was a dangerous tyrant who was clearly insane and capable of inflicting many future atrocities and those of us who support this intervention can only do so if we think it in effect saved lives obviously, the west not intervening militarily doesn't mean nothing happens it merely means something else happens and by inaction onlookers are still morally implicated in the outcome, and it is an important charge to press against the anti war position that they actually analyse the potential consequences of inaction and actually consider if it would have been a better world.

I agree that the 500,000 claim is bogus for the 2003 war. But so is the claim that "1 million Iraqis had already been executed and piled into the mass graves around Iraq" by Saddam Hussein. There is no factual basis for such a figure other than people fantasizing. Human Rights Watch estimated a figure of about 300,000 Iraqis killed by Hussein during his rule, but that too really isn't much more than a guess. While I agree that "there is no reason to simply assert a larger figure" in the case of the 2003 war, it's not really good form to then turn around and do exactly that in the other direction by pulling a number out of thin air to pin on Saddam Hussein in order to argue in favor of creating the "terrible loss of innocent human life" that resulted from invading Iraq.

Moreover, the past atrocities of Hussein were not the result of "inaction" or non-intervention. They were largely results of various kinds of interventions. Even Hussein coming to power in a coup may have partly been a result of covert western intervention to begin with. There was at least support for it in the west. Then what about the gassing of Kurds? Well, that was all part of the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's, as Hussein saw the Kurds as siding with Iran. And how did Hussein get away with invading another country and starting that war? Well, he got away with it because he had the blessing of the US and European powers, and their diplomatic cover from any kind of sanction or response to that aggression by the UN (including for the attacks on the Kurds). This is not inaction in the face of atrocities, it is acting to support and enable them. It's unlikely Hussein could have gotten away with any of this and may not have even tried to get away with much of it without knowing that the western powers had his back. This is also what he thought when invading Kuwait a couple years after the Iran-Iraq war ended. He thought he'd get away with it because the US and its allies would cover his back again just like they did with Iran, but this turned out wrong. The next spate of killing by Hussein was at the end of the war to remove him from Kuwait, when again the US and allies encouraged an armed uprising by Shiites in Iraq. Hussein responded to this rebellion by putting it down with force, killing lots of rebels and civilians in the process. None of this resulted from "inaction". It was all direct results of various forms of intervention, military, covert and diplomatic.

So what happened then with killings after 1991. Well, not much. All of Hussein's mass killings were in the 1980's while he was being supported by the US and allies in waging war on Iran (and by extension, the Kurds), and during the first Gulf War. After that, there is no mass killing by Hussein. This is quite instructive. After the US turned its back on Hussein in 1990-91, and withdrew its crucial support for his wars of aggression and mass killings, they all stopped from then on. There were no such events anymore after 1991. There was also no "genocide" against Marsh Arabs (forced migration may not be pretty but it is not "genocide".) And the campaign against Marsh Arabs was again an outcome of prior intervention, as it was retribution against the Marsh Arabs for supporting the 1991 Shiite uprising that resulted from the first Gulf War and US encouragement, and subsequent abandonment of that uprising.

All of Hussein's major crimes are outcomes of intervention, not "inaction". All of these major crimes ceased once the crucial support for them ended. By 2001 and 2002 groups like Amnesty were estimating the numbers being killed by the Hussein regime at around 'dozens' per year, including official death penalty sentences. Still not pretty, but not mass killing either. So the possibility of the 2003 invasion "saving lives" is roughly zero. There had not been any mass killing by Hussein for years and none was imminent. One can always speculate that at some future time there might be mass killing again, but this flies in the face of the historical record. The conditions that enabled the Hussein regime to engage in it in the past (including the US and allies intervening on his behalf) were long gone.

The 2003 invasion was not an effort to "save lives". It was an effort to take lives for political and economic advantage. Nothing more, nothing less. What might have happened without the invasion is probably that Hussein would have continued to rule as a tyrant for some time, possibly killing about "dozens" per year in Iraq, but with no means to engage in any of the wars or major aggression he had in the past. And at some point down the road, his end might have been being overthrown in an Arab Spring revolt. But I don't really think this process of speculating a terrible future and then killing lots of people to supposedly create a better future than your speculated one is really the way these questions should be handled.

[ryanh327]

(Original post by user1-4)
i'm referring to the leak the group anonymous made

Anonymous didn't release any Iraqi casualty figures, "500,000" or otherwise. WikiLeaks released US military figures on Iraq, totaling 109,032 deaths. 66,081 is the number classified as civilian in those figures.

[Imperial_Maniac]

We aren't there to occupy their country, we're there to stop the Taliban terrorising the civilian population, using nazi tactics would defeat the entire point of us being there.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Fatfis]

(Original post by Maker)
Don't be so naive.

Every organisation has to have people negotiating and compromising so they can work together to achieve mutual objectives.

If the members of the Taliban did not do that, they will all be running around pursuing their own individual agendas and the Coalition could mop them up in a few weeks. Similarly, the Taliban knows it cannot always use fire power to achieve their political aims and have to negotiate with other Afghans and the Coalition.

You seem to be blinded by some of their more extreme actions and not seeing the bigger picture.

Okay but you didn't answer my question - you seem somehow informed on the mindset of the Taliban I ask again what concessions would in your eyes bring them to the table?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Maker]

(Original post by Fatfis)
Okay but you didn't answer my question - you seem somehow informed on the mindset of the Taliban I ask again what concessions would in your eyes bring them to the table?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

You are assuming one side will make concessions and the other side does not. That is not how negotiations work. Both sides trade things they want for things they can afford to give away.

If one side gives concessions for no reciprocal benefit to itself, that is not a negotiation.

You also make the assumption the Taliban hold the strongest cards and don't have to negotiate. That is obviously not true otherwise they could just take over Afghanistan which they can't do.

I have no idea what subjects are up for negotiation. Negotiators don't give away what they really want and what they are willing to trade for and what price they want for these things.

Negotiations is like poker, you bluff to keep the other side guessing as to your true position and strengths and weaknesses. Telling people what concessions you would make is like telling the other side in a poker game what your cards are.

When I bought my house, I told the vendor I could not get a higher montage and could not go any higher even if I wanted to. That was not true, it was a bluff but the vendor did not know that and accepted my lower offer.

[Kiss]

At the expense of a life of fear, hatred, totalitarianism and cultural imperialism, as well as being highly unethical, then by all means keep your Nazi ideologies. But judging by your negs on this post I'd say most people don't like that idea.

[thisisnew]

(Original post by user1-4)
The kids being shot for picking up rocks is more well knows for Palestine, but it's true for Iraq aswell. There've been Iraqi refugees who've spoken about this and former rapper Lowkey (Iraqi) has mentioned how kids who picked up rocks have been shot at and why his parents had to leave Iraq.
500,000+ civilians killed is a well known figure??? How could you need me to give you a source for that. It is the figure that was leaked a while ago by the US. You are probably talking about the propoganda figures of what 130,000? Even if that figure were to be true, it is still 130,000 too many.

It worries me that for every sane person who has a clue on this topic, there's about a hundred people like you.

[user1-4]

(Original post by thisisnew)
It worries me that for every sane person who has a clue on this topic, there's about a hundred people like you.

right... Seeing as though your israeli i guess you're going to say you have a right to be there and such? You're going to say you don't shoot at kids, cause warfare and a load of other things etc. Yeah, i'm not really interested. I'll hear what you have to say, but it won't really be that revealing will it.

It worries me that there are people like you, who will make a comment like that, in reply to one saying deaths are too many.

[Fatfis]

(Original post by Maker)
You are assuming one side will make concessions and the other side does not. That is not how negotiations work. Both sides trade things they want for things they can afford to give away.

If one side gives concessions for no reciprocal benefit to itself, that is not a negotiation.

You also make the assumption the Taliban hold the strongest cards and don't have to negotiate. That is obviously not true otherwise they could just take over Afghanistan which they can't do.

I have no idea what subjects are up for negotiation. Negotiators don't give away what they really want and what they are willing to trade for and what price they want for these things.

Negotiations is like poker, you bluff to keep the other side guessing as to your true position and strengths and weaknesses. Telling people what concessions you would make is like telling the other side in a poker game what your cards are.

When I bought my house, I told the vendor I could not get a higher montage and could not go any higher even if I wanted to. That was not true, it was a bluff but the vendor did not know that and accepted my lower offer.

You still did not answer my question, of course there is a mutual concession for mutual benefit but can you think if of what the Taliban will concede that we would have to demand, and any plausible demands they will make that we can concede to without capitulation of our values?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Maker]

(Original post by Fatfis)
You still did not answer my question, of course there is a mutual concession for mutual benefit but can you think if of what the Taliban will concede that we would have to demand, and any plausible demands they will make that we can concede to without capitulation of our values?


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Since only those doing the negotiating really knows what the issues are. I could tell you any old rubbish and there is no way you can verify if its true or not.

The only things the Coalition and the Taliban care about is power, money and prestige. Values and anything else is what ever is left after these 3 things. So get real and stop being naive.

[MagicNMedicine]

(Original post by 122025278)
I was thinking about how the Nazis managed to control almost all of Europe, France in the west to Russia in the east,

lolwut

As you've been studying your history how about tell us about the German control of Russia, what laws did they pass? What governance system did they have in place?