655,000 deaths in Iraq since invasion?

[icarus]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Well over 4 million have died in Sudan and people give two for that number since it isn't the USA creating the carnage.

Where are you getting this from? Assuming you are talking about Darfur, the number is probably more like half a million (about 4 million are affected by the conflict however).

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Yep I too find it sadly comical that the Anti-American/Anti-Republican/Anti-Bush crowd think death in Iraq is horrendous cause the above 3 and more caused it while the death tolls in other places get zippo or very little notice.

And why do they get zippo for coverage? Because the Bush administartion doesn't give a squirt about what is going on in Africa. Never have, never will. Unless their is political gain for their agenda they don't give a rip. When they don't care, the press doesn't care.

NOBODY is stepping up to help in Africa. All a load of BS as far as I'm concerned.

And why is that? Can you think of anytime that other nations have dispached their military, unilaterally, to aid another nation? Normally this is done through the UN, and the UN has become bogged down in politiking in the Security Council. You want to see some results, get the United States, Russia and China off the Security Council.

I would think the way more important discussion is how you solve these crisis -- Not the blame game while they are still taking place. Personally I think the seperating of the three groups into three nation states is the way to go in IRAQ.

I agree, this is the best solution on the surface, but I wonder whether that result in just more war, only more formaized.

The American forces can then go into Sudan instead seeing as they are one of the very few countries who actually have the balls to put troops out around the world in numbers that make a difference.

I think its time for American forces to go home and stay home. As you pointed out, its time for some other nations to kick in their forces to peacekeeping details. That means the politiking in the Security Council has to stop.

One of the things I've found pathetic is how nations like Russia, China, Germany and France with their large populations and armies aren't out there with huge peacekeeping forces. Instead they just sit and do their usual sit on the sidelines and whine about the US. Unless they are willing to do something they should just SHUT UP!!!

I don't blame these nations one bit. They have big enough problems at home to worry about, and they don't have the money. Not many nations are willing to go trillions of dollars in debt to help another, especially when there are problems at home to deal with. I wish the United States would do the same. The infrastructure in this country is in terrible shape and could use the money. Border security is a massive problem, yet there is not enough resources available to defend the borders. Frankly, the United States is expending all the resources they have on nation building in Iraq instead of on the needs of the nation. I applaud other nations that look after their own backyard before sticking their noses into the business of others.

The United Nations has to become more effective, and the only way this is going to happen is with the Security Council cooperating with each other. Politcal agendas have choked down the effectiveness of the SC and with it, the UN. This needs to be resolved. These nations also should commit troops to the UN for peacekeeping efforts, and the UN should be responsible for deploying these resources. This the start that will lead to more global stability IMO.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I think its time for American forces to go home and stay home. As you pointed out, its time for some other nations to kick in their forces to peacekeeping details. That means the politiking in the Security Council has to stop.

Well if we are talking about UN peacekeeping, there are currently 32 nations with more peacekeepers deployed than the US. Nepal for instance has about ten times as many peacekeepers deployed as the US at the moment. There are 17 nations contributing more than a thousand peacekeepers. FYI, Canada is currently the 55th greatest peacekeeping contributor. These rankings refer to military and police contributions.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by icarus

Where are you getting this from? Assuming you are talking about Darfur, the number is probably more like half a million (about 4 million are affected by the conflict however).

I believe the 4 million number is occasionally cited by members of this forum as being from the beginning of Sudan's civil war (1983-2005). I got into a disagreement with someone else (White Doors, possibly?) about it a while ago. Official estimates are closer to two-million, with 4 million people displaced at one time or another. But hey, artificially inflating statistics is okay if it's not involving a conflict the US started.

Oh, and about HOZ's argument that the US is not responsible for the carnage in Sudan, who was the primary arms supplier to the Sudanese army at the time that the civil war began? The US sold over a $100 million-worth of arms to Sudan in 1982 alone. I'd also say that they are primarily responsible for the lack of international intervention in Darfur, despite the fact that they've been very vocal in calling for intervention: they commited themselves and much of NATO to other missions (one of which was highly questionable in motive), have increased hostility towards the west in muslim nations, and increased the risk to other peace-keeping missions. Had the current Iraq mission not happened, there's a good chance we'd see a significant NATO and UN peace-keeping presence in Sudan right now.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I believe the 4 million number is occasionally cited by members of this forum as being from the beginning of Sudan's civil war (1983-2005). I got into a disagreement with someone else (White Doors, possibly?) about it a while ago. Official estimates are closer to two-million, with 4 million people displaced at one time or another. But hey, artificially inflating statistics is okay if it's not involving a conflict the US started.

Oh, and about HOZ's argument that the US is not responsible for the carnage in Sudan, who was the primary arms supplier to the Sudanese army at the time that the civil war began? The US sold over a $100 million-worth of arms to Sudan in 1982 alone. I'd also say that they are primarily responsible for the lack of international intervention in Darfur, despite the fact that they've been very vocal in calling for intervention: they commited themselves and much of NATO to other missions (one of which was highly questionable in motive), have increased hostility towards the west in muslim nations, and increased the risk to other peace-keeping missions. Had the current Iraq mission not happened, there's a good chance we'd see a significant NATO and UN peace-keeping presence in Sudan right now.

I don't have time to make a full reply. But I will say this....do you know WHY the UN has not already been there?

1) The UN does not consider it a genocide. Much like Rwanda's clerical mistake.

2) The UN must have SUDAN permission to come. So far Sudan has only allowed the African Union troops there and now I believe they have kicked them out.


So how do you come up with this it's the invasion of Iraq and the US's fault? Beyond the US selling arms to Sudan in 1982 , a year prior to the civil war start, do you have any other times where the US was fueling the fire? I know several Oil companies (Canadian included!!!!!!!!!! And don't let the Euros off either) WERE PAYING for the fight and now China is in top gear for oil. There is plenty of blame to go around. But I would like to know why countries that NOW turn a blind eye get a free ride?

I wonder why a politically motivated survey that basically discredits a very good methodology for determining numbers of dead gets the ok...(actually I don't. It is all a part of the "I hate Bush/ USA" derangement that people have latched on to.) and yet the number I have brought up gets immediately questioned. I am willing to change my number but then people need to start googling Sudan civilwar a bit more.

[icarus]

Originally Posted by HOZ

and yet the number I have brought up gets immediately questioned. I am willing to change my number but then people need to start googling Sudan civilwar a bit more.

Well cowpoke I had no interest in joining in one of your loopy dogmatic debates so my question was not meant to be rhetorical or pointed, I just wondered where you pulled this 4 million figure from. I have researched postwar Sudanese history a fair bit (using more than your favourite research method, Google) and I have never heard that figure, so I was just curious what your source was. Oh, and since you are an expert in the Sudanese civil war I am sure you will now recall that despite a flimsy peace agreement in the 1970s the civil war truly began in 1956 and is Africa's longest running conflict.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I don't have time to make a full reply. But I will say this....do you know WHY the UN has not already been there?

1) The UN does not consider it a genocide. Much like Rwanda's clerical mistake.

Yeah, typical UN crap. But the reason that they haven't labelled it a genocide isn't because of statistics (the most recent figures cited by the UN for Darfur are 400,000+, pretty much in line with what's being said by every humanitarian group and doctors on the ground), but rather because the UN doesn't believe that there's "genocidal intent". My theory (this is all speculation) is that the UN is intentionally trying to avoid labelling the conflict a genocide because they know they don't have the mandate to enforce it. If the UN labels Darfur a genocide but can't get anyone to provide funding and troops for a mission, then it pretty much proves the widely believed theory that the UN is completely powerless. So instead they do little in the hopes of maintaining the illusion of power.

2) The UN must have SUDAN permission to come. So far Sudan has only allowed the African Union troops there and now I believe they have kicked them out.

AU troops are still in Darfur and are making a positive impact in the south, but in the northern parts of Darfur, the jahwaneed are starting to target the AU--difficult to say whether this is under the order of the Sudanese government or the militias acting independently (more likely the latter because it's not the case throughout the entire region). As far as the UN needing Sudanese permission, that's not exactly the case: Article 7 of the charter allows the UN take take military action in any nation if mandated by the security council. The problem is that China and Russia would likely block any such motion unless Sudan accepts such a force. I think the appropriate measure for the US is to attempt to get such a motion passed through the security council. If it fails, then at least they can move on to NATO and start building support for a mission there. I know the AU wants a UN mission to the region led by the US, but I don't know if they'd be willing to work with a NATO mission. An AU/NATO coalition could actually be much more effective than a UN coalition, though.

So how do you come up with this it's the invasion of Iraq and the US's fault? Beyond the US selling arms to Sudan in 1982 , a year prior to the civil war start, do you have any other times where the US was fueling the fire? I know several Oil companies (Canadian included!!!!!!!!!! And don't let the Euros off either) WERE PAYING for the fight and now China is in top gear for oil. There is plenty of blame to go around. But I would like to know why countries that NOW turn a blind eye get a free ride?

I'm not saying it's the US's fault, I'm saying that they bear some responsibility. You're right, lots of blame to go around: China, Russia, the UN, the AU, big oil, etc. I do think that the Soviet and American policies of arming various dictators and rebel groups has been very destructive to Africa, and would list them among the most culpable.

I wonder why a politically motivated survey that basically discredits a very good methodology for determining numbers of dead gets the ok...(actually I don't. It is all a part of the "I hate Bush/ USA" derangement that people have latched on to.) and yet the number I have brought up gets immediately questioned. I am willing to change my number but then people need to start googling Sudan civilwar a bit more.

I'm not discrediting anything. Other than the 4-million number (you'll have to point me to where you got that before I decide whether I can agree with it or not), I generally support the highest reasonable estimate. In the case of Darfur, for example, the 400,000+ figure seems like the most likely, and I think it's been widely accepted by every group who has done estimates, except the US, who's figures are significantly lower... the problem I see with their methodology is that their interviews are conducted entirely with refugees in Chad, and because in many cases they've lost touch with their families and are unable to say whether members of their household have been killed, producing lower death tolls. However, their raw data, combined with the WHO data and properly estimated--as in the recent study by Hagan produce a range from around 200,000 to 400,000. I expect the same will be true of Iraq: the data compiled by this latest survey is going to be more accurate than simply tracing news reports, but it's not necessarily extrapolated in the best possible way. The question is whether their formula for extrapolating the data is reasonable, or whether it's like WHO and the state-department's original data on Sudan.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

And why do they get zippo for coverage? Because the Bush administartion doesn't give a squirt about what is going on in Africa. Never have, never will. Unless their is political gain for their agenda they don't give a rip. When they don't care, the press doesn't care.



And why is that? Can you think of anytime that other nations have dispached their military, unilaterally, to aid another nation? Normally this is done through the UN, and the UN has become bogged down in politiking in the Security Council. You want to see some results, get the United States, Russia and China off the Security Council.



I agree, this is the best solution on the surface, but I wonder whether that result in just more war, only more formaized.



I think its time for American forces to go home and stay home. As you pointed out, its time for some other nations to kick in their forces to peacekeeping details. That means the politiking in the Security Council has to stop.



I don't blame these nations one bit. They have big enough problems at home to worry about, and they don't have the money. Not many nations are willing to go trillions of dollars in debt to help another, especially when there are problems at home to deal with. I wish the United States would do the same. The infrastructure in this country is in terrible shape and could use the money. Border security is a massive problem, yet there is not enough resources available to defend the borders. Frankly, the United States is expending all the resources they have on nation building in Iraq instead of on the needs of the nation. I applaud other nations that look after their own backyard before sticking their noses into the business of others.

The United Nations has to become more effective, and the only way this is going to happen is with the Security Council cooperating with each other. Politcal agendas have choked down the effectiveness of the SC and with it, the UN. This needs to be resolved. These nations also should commit troops to the UN for peacekeeping efforts, and the UN should be responsible for deploying these resources. This the start that will lead to more global stability IMO.

The UN is useless. Should be mothballed forever. First step if the US decided to go back to the old ways where they did their stuff by proxy and propup and picking guys off would be to punt the UN. Get involved only if they are hit bigtime. Yes indeed they could surely use some heavy spending in their own country.

Rogue states would get the message they are free to cause havoc but what the heck. If it isn't a key ally like Japan or Israel or South Korea then let them seek out help from the Euro's --- LOL that will be the sure kiss of death for those asking.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

The UN is useless. Should be mothballed forever. First step if the US decided to go back to the old ways where they did their stuff by proxy and propup and picking guys off would be to punt the UN. Get involved only if they are hit bigtime. Yes indeed they could surely use some heavy spending in their own country.

Well, whether you're right or wrong about the UN, there's about 180 countries that seem to disagree with you, especially the United States. If its useless you should probably let them know, they pour tons of effort and resources into working with it and through it all the time. Are they fools for doing so?