Zarqawi Killed In Air Raid

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

Dresden, (by modern-day German estimates) 25,000-35,000.

Additionally, the attack on Dresden was to prevent the reinforcement of German troops on the Eastern Front in the face of the advancing Soviets.

NEXT???

low estimates, some i've seen range up to 100,000 due to the refugee population there

[slim 1,533]

Very true. I've seen estimates of up to 200,000, but none are confirmed. The modern-day confirmation is somwhere between 25,000 and 35,000. The deaths from the firebombings in Japan are confirmed by both the Japanese and the US, and were confirmed shortly after the incident. The German figures are just a guess because of the state of disarray the country was in at the time.

My point was not that Japan took more civilian losses than Germany, but that the US made the decision to deliberately target civilians on a larger and more intentional scale in Japan than in Germany.

I'm not saying it wasn't necessary or complaining that the US was wrong to do that, I'm attempting to make the connection that the Japanese people were viewed differently than the Germans, and to kill over a quarter-million civilians in such a short time was acceptable to the average American, much like killing 26,000+ Iraqis is acceptable today.

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

Very true. I've seen estimates of up to 200,000, but none are confirmed. The modern-day confirmation is somwhere between 25,000 and 35,000. The deaths from the firebombings in Japan are confirmed by both the Japanese and the US, and were confirmed shortly after the incident. The German figures are just a guess because of the state of disarray the country was in at the time.

My point was not that Japan took more civilian losses than Germany, but that the US made the decision to deliberately target civilians on a larger and more intentional scale in Japan than in Germany.

I'm not saying it wasn't necessary or complaining that the US was wrong to do that, I'm attempting to make the connection that the Japanese people were viewed differently than the Germans, and to kill over a quarter-million civilians in such a short time was acceptable to the average American, much like killing 26,000+ Iraqis is acceptable today.

and on the other hand, the japanese were not angels. check out the movie "the great raid" and also see what you can find about the korean comfort women from ww2

[workin4somethin 0]

1 terrorist is not worth all the americans killed over there and iraq citizens...

Let's change this up a little by removing "1 terrorist" and "not" and by adding "OIL"

Now we have:

"OIL is worth all the americans killed over there and iraq citizens..."

Because we all know this is the answer to, "Why our President believes the deaths and other expenses are worth it?"

[*Robert* 2]

1 terrorist is not worth all the americans killed over there and iraq citizens...

Let's change this up a little by removing "1 terrorist" and "not" and by adding "OIL"

Now we have:

"OIL is worth all the americans killed over there and iraq citizens..."

Because we all know this is the answer to, "Why our President believes the deaths and other expenses are worth it?"

so sad, but true... god forbid the US would have to start dipping into it's own private stash and do something to offset the current cost of oil... but hey, gives the US a chance to play it's war games over in someone else's backyard.

[ual777 0]

Very true. I've seen estimates of up to 200,000, but none are confirmed. The modern-day confirmation is somwhere between 25,000 and 35,000. The deaths from the firebombings in Japan are confirmed by both the Japanese and the US, and were confirmed shortly after the incident. The German figures are just a guess because of the state of disarray the country was in at the time.

My point was not that Japan took more civilian losses than Germany, but that the US made the decision to deliberately target civilians on a larger and more intentional scale in Japan than in Germany.

I'm not saying it wasn't necessary or complaining that the US was wrong to do that, I'm attempting to make the connection that the Japanese people were viewed differently than the Germans, and to kill over a quarter-million civilians in such a short time was acceptable to the average American, much like killing 26,000+ Iraqis is acceptable today.

More Iraqis are being killed by insurgents than by Americans.

I am personally disgusted with Bush. I think he is just completely out of touch with the U.S. population on just about EVERY issue. The problem is that the democrats are no better. They are SO far left that I really don't know who to vote for in 2008.

Furthermore, Saddam DID invade Kuwait in 1989/1990. After that, he violated the no-fly zone and shot at American aircraft over 200 times in the ensuing decade.

9/11 happened because islamic extremists dont like the fact that we help Israel, and thus we are guilty by association.

Iraq happened because of faulty intelligence. Some say there are no WMDs, and some say they were sent to Syria.

The Iraq situation is VERY different from that of WW2 in that people are killing eachother over there over religion. The U.S. needs to increase troop numbers there by 30%, install a curfiew, and seal the border. Then, start hunting down anyone who is instigating or performing secretarian violence. Build up the government's strength, train their troops, and start pulling out. This could be completely accomplished by 2010.

[*Robert* 2]

Very true. I've seen estimates of up to 200,000, but none are confirmed. The modern-day confirmation is somwhere between 25,000 and 35,000. The deaths from the firebombings in Japan are confirmed by both the Japanese and the US, and were confirmed shortly after the incident. The German figures are just a guess because of the state of disarray the country was in at the time.

My point was not that Japan took more civilian losses than Germany, but that the US made the decision to deliberately target civilians on a larger and more intentional scale in Japan than in Germany.

I'm not saying it wasn't necessary or complaining that the US was wrong to do that, I'm attempting to make the connection that the Japanese people were viewed differently than the Germans, and to kill over a quarter-million civilians in such a short time was acceptable to the average American, much like killing 26,000+ Iraqis is acceptable today.

More Iraqis are being killed by insurgents than by Americans.

I am personally disgusted with Bush. I think he is just completely out of touch with the U.S. population on just about EVERY issue. The problem is that the democrats are no better. They are SO far left that I really don't know who to vote for in 2008.

Furthermore, Saddam DID invade Kuwait in 1989/1990. After that, he violated the no-fly zone and shot at American aircraft over 200 times in the ensuing decade.

9/11 happened because islamic extremists dont like the fact that we help Israel, and thus we are guilty by association.

Iraq happened because of faulty intelligence. Some say there are no WMDs, and some say they were sent to Syria.

The Iraq situation is VERY different from that of WW2 in that people are killing eachother over there over religion. The U.S. needs to increase troop numbers there by 30%, install a curfiew, and seal the border. Then, start hunting down anyone who is instigating or performing secretarian violence. Build up the government's strength, train their troops, and start pulling out. This could be completely accomplished by 2010.

Agree 100%

You can not compare what happened in WWI or WWII with what's going on today. That is comparing apples to oranges.

also agree 100% with your assesment of Bush. The man should be declared incompetent and removed from office. Only problem is the VP isn't any better!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Furthermore, Saddam DID invade Kuwait in 1989/1990.

What is the relevance of the 89/90 invasion here? I mean other than the US copying Saddam's illegal act of aggression some 13-14 years later essentially committing the same crime?

Iraq happened because of faulty intelligence.

You still believe that? Edited June 10, 2006 by ET-US2004

[slim 1,533]

Anyone who says "you cannot compare what happened in World War I and World War II to what is happening today" is dead wrong. (And, after living in Korea for two years, I know all about what the Japanese did during the occupation.)

More Iraqis have been killed by insurgents than by Americans? (Source please!) And, why is there an insurgency? I don't recall an insurgency under Sadaam. There was, but it was immediately crushed and stability restored again. The more actions that the insurgency takes, the more people that are killed, the more death and destruction witnessed by average Iraqis, the more the animosity towards the US and coalition presence. People are going to hate the insurgency, but over time, they're going to hate the occupying forces even more. (If we can't compare WWI and WWII, we can definitely compare Vietnam, right?)

During World Wars I and II, there were huge military units fighting other huge military units and ulitmately countries fighting against countries. Well armed, well trained, well organized military units. A real war like the one you saw in History class back in 7th grade. In Vietnam, that happened too, but there was a whole new element involved. The guerrilla warfare element... the insurgency. (Insurgency is not a new concept in the US.... think back to 1776. Washington and 'nem started us off by being "insurgents" right here in the good ol' US of A. Don't you guys think they should've had 500 lb bombs dropped on their homes too?)

In all of these wars, the government had to convince the people that losing Americans in the fight was worthwhile. In Iraq, they're starting to falter. The reasons given for the invasion and subsequent occupation have been getting harder and harder for most Americans to believe and agree with now. For the die-hard supporters (or sheep, as I like to call them) the reasoning is that the "dirty terrorists all need to die" and whatever action necessary to make that happen is acceptable. What the sheep fail to realize is that when you label a group of people as "dirty terrorists" and start to confuse the good people with the bad, and start saying that "people around the terrorists should've known better" and things of that nature, the people who are not "dirty terrorists" start to realize that even though they aren't "dirty terrorists" they're going to be labeled as such and the big picture doesn't matter so much, because after all, they're just "dirty terrorists."

Or, they're just sneaky Japanese. Or they're just Jerrys. The mindset is the same. They aren't worth as much as an American.

Why not?

All of us on here have foreigners as relatives or potential relatives. How some folks can continue to regard Muslims as less important because they're "allied with the dirty terrorists" is shocking to me. But, that's the American way I guess. As long as it's popular to put people down (and kill them) based on what they look like or where they're from, we'll continue to do it. I just hope these folks remember that if we're going to do it to someone else.... chances are they're going to do it back. How can we be mad at that, after all, it's the American way!

[*Robert* 2]

Anyone who says "you cannot compare what happened in World War I and World War II to what is happening today" is dead wrong. (And, after living in Korea for two years, I know all about what the Japanese did during the occupation.)

More Iraqis have been killed by insurgents than by Americans? (Source please!) And, why is there an insurgency? I don't recall an insurgency under Sadaam. There was, but it was immediately crushed and stability restored again. The more actions that the insurgency takes, the more people that are killed, the more death and destruction witnessed by average Iraqis, the more the animosity towards the US and coalition presence. People are going to hate the insurgency, but over time, they're going to hate the occupying forces even more. (If we can't compare WWI and WWII, we can definitely compare Vietnam, right?)

During World Wars I and II, there were huge military units fighting other huge military units and ulitmately countries fighting against countries. Well armed, well trained, well organized military units. A real war like the one you saw in History class back in 7th grade. In Vietnam, that happened too, but there was a whole new element involved. The guerrilla warfare element... the insurgency. (Insurgency is not a new concept in the US.... think back to 1776. Washington and 'nem started us off by being "insurgents" right here in the good ol' US of A. Don't you guys think they should've had 500 lb bombs dropped on their homes too?)

In all of these wars, the government had to convince the people that losing Americans in the fight was worthwhile. In Iraq, they're starting to falter. The reasons given for the invasion and subsequent occupation have been getting harder and harder for most Americans to believe and agree with now. For the die-hard supporters (or sheep, as I like to call them) the reasoning is that the "dirty terrorists all need to die" and whatever action necessary to make that happen is acceptable. What the sheep fail to realize is that when you label a group of people as "dirty terrorists" and start to confuse the good people with the bad, and start saying that "people around the terrorists should've known better" and things of that nature, the people who are not "dirty terrorists" start to realize that even though they aren't "dirty terrorists" they're going to be labeled as such and the big picture doesn't matter so much, because after all, they're just "dirty terrorists."

Or, they're just sneaky Japanese. Or they're just Jerrys. The mindset is the same. They aren't worth as much as an American.

Why not?

All of us on here have foreigners as relatives or potential relatives. How some folks can continue to regard Muslims as less important because they're "allied with the dirty terrorists" is shocking to me. But, that's the American way I guess. As long as it's popular to put people down (and kill them) based on what they look like or where they're from, we'll continue to do it. I just hope these folks remember that if we're going to do it to someone else.... chances are they're going to do it back. How can we be mad at that, after all, it's the American way!

In WWI and WWII we had foreign powers trying to take control of world power and take over entire countries, and for the most part, it was a global conflict. How do you compare the "war" in Iraq as being the same thing? Is Irag trying to invade other countries, are they looking for world domination?

[slim 1,533]

No, but you could argue that the US is!

The government is attempting to make the connection between terrorists, and those who are being killed every day. That connection simply does not exist, and the harder we try to connect people from that region to people who conduct terrorist acts, the more we're going to change public oppinion there. We are there to help gets really old when we kill thousands and thousands of people.

[*Robert* 2]

No, but you could argue that the US is!

The government is attempting to make the connection between terrorists, and those who are being killed every day. That connection simply does not exist, and the harder we try to connect people from that region to people who conduct terrorist acts, the more we're going to change public oppinion there. We are there to help gets really old when we kill thousands and thousands of people.

Okay...

I am fully supportive of the US getting out of Iraq and learning how to mind it's own business. It's funny that throughout history, the US has such a spotty record of human rights violations, slavery, civil war, and everything else you can imagine, but when some other country has the same problems, it's wrong and the US has to step in and stop it?!!!

The "big brother" attitude the US has, not the mention the "holier than thou" ####### IS OLD, and I wish we could go back to the days of isolationism, but that is both impracticle, and will never happen. War is war, killing is killing. Two wrongs certainly do not make a right!

I will be so happy when this current presidency comes to an end. The scary part is who will be next. I have to keep telling myself "surely, it can't get worse than this"!!!

[dalegg 143]

The last time a developed country seriously threatened another developed country- causing mass deaths of civilians- was when the Germans invaded it's European Neighbors, and correct me if I'm wrong, but England had no problem retalitating by bombing cities they knew had caucasion German civilians. So don't tell me countries deal with threats to their populations based on the ethnicity of the person perpetuating the threat.

That comparison lacks credibility as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Iraq did not invade any country. Iraq is actually the invaded country here. The US and UK are the aggressing and occupying nations in this case. So, now you are wanting to justify "retaliations" on the population of the invaded nation same as one might justify retaliations on the population of an aggressing nation? That leaves a rather odd aftertaste, doesn't it?

Can I just get a clarification here?:

The U.S invaded Iraq- Okay, we agree on this. But do you think that the people fighting under Zarqawi are representative of the Iraqi nation? You are stating that I shouldn't "justify retaliations on the population of the invaded nation" as if Zarqawi is representative of Iraq. This is where we are having our disconnect. I think of Zarqawi's men as the invaders now, and so when I made this comparison I was actually thinking of them as the agressors.

Am I just totally off here? Is the bulk of the Iraqi nation actually behind Zarqawi?

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

The last time a developed country seriously threatened another developed country- causing mass deaths of civilians- was when the Germans invaded it's European Neighbors, and correct me if I'm wrong, but England had no problem retalitating by bombing cities they knew had caucasion German civilians. So don't tell me countries deal with threats to their populations based on the ethnicity of the person perpetuating the threat.

That comparison lacks credibility as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Iraq did not invade any country. Iraq is actually the invaded country here. The US and UK are the aggressing and occupying nations in this case. So, now you are wanting to justify "retaliations" on the population of the invaded nation same as one might justify retaliations on the population of an aggressing nation? That leaves a rather odd aftertaste, doesn't it?

Can I just get a clarification here?:

The U.S invaded Iraq- Okay, we agree on this. But do you think that the people fighting under Zarqawi are representative of the Iraqi nation? You are stating that I shouldn't "justify retaliations on the population of the invaded nation" as if Zarqawi is representative of Iraq. This is where we are having our disconnect. I think of Zarqawi's men as the invaders now, and so when I made this comparison I was actually thinking of them as the agressors.

Am I just totally off here? Is the bulk of the Iraqi nation actually behind Zarqawi?

as zarqawi is jordanian, i doubt it. but not surprising some radical fringes support him and mourn him. i've also read that some iraqis where quite happy that zarqawi died.

[Razor 0]

Only 4 to 10 percent of the Iraqi insurgency is made up of foreign fighters. Bush could have gotten Zarqawi a long time ago but instead they chose to keep him around for propaganda

Why Bush let Iraq's top terrorist walk.

http://www.slate.com/id/2108880/

US 'allowed Zarqawi to escape'

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/us-all...6335608444.html

When Bush Let Zarqawi Go

I've mentioned this before, and Michael Scheuer has now confirmed it publicly. Other administration officials confirmed to to me privately years ago now. In July 2002, the Bush administration had a clear chance to kill Zarqawi. They punted primarily because it would have derailed diplomacy in the run-up to the war. If they had bombed part of Iraq in July 2002, they might have made even

Resolution 1441 impossible to achieve. Money quote from Scheuer:

"Mr Bush had Zarqawi in his sights almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn't shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq. Almost every day we sent a package to the White House that had overhead imagery of the house he was staying in. It was a terrorist training camp ... experimenting with ricin and anthrax ... any collateral damage there would have been terrorists."