[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1304339160' post='4805377']
Does the vietnam war's 70% civilian casualty rate count, with it's many documented acts of genocide (2 million civilians)? Or the 2nd gulf war's 90% civilian casualty rate (400,000 civilians)?
Or what of the 500,000 Iraqi children who died as a direct result of American sanctions during the 90's (to no effect)? Isn't that basically laying siege to and killing via attrition hundreds of thousands based on nothing but their nationality...?

Would you celebrate the death of the men who ordered these acts?

Your Gulf War number is basically made up. The Vietnam one is close to the total caused by all sides (N-S Vietnam, US), however. Plus the sanctions were UN, and could have been vetoed by any country on the security council.[/quote]My Iraq war numbers were quoted from the ANU, however the peer reviewed lancet surveys found a higher number of 600,000 deaths from 2003-2006. The official American figures say at least 100,000.
The Vietnam numbers came from the modern Vietnamese government. Other estimates go up to 3-4 million dead total (including troops).

Yes the US-enforced sanctions through the 90's were approved by the UN, after being tabled by the US - so obviously you can blame other security council representatives who agreed.

The question still stands -- those men killed half a million children for no reason other than they happened to be in the wrong country -- would you celebrate their assassination?

[edit]And here's a source for a US ambassador (later secretary of state) defending the 90's genocide in Iraq:[media][/media]

[quote name='Alpha_ProgDes' timestamp='1304378626' post='4805687']
They had no nukes, chemical and biological stockpiles were considered harmless. And Iraq said they would let inspectors. The US thought it was a trick and went in anyway. So yeah, that Resolution is not really a justification for the war. Sorry.

The had been saying they would let inspectors in for a decade, and the times they did let them in they weren't allowed to inspect everything.

I think the significantly larger problem than whether or not we should have invaded Iraq was the post invasion plan, which is what really cost the most civilian and US soldier's lives.
[/quote]

The post-invasion panning was awful, to be sure. But we wouldn't have needed a post-invasion plan if there had been no invasion. Even a well planned and executed post-invasion strategy would have been expensive and time consuming. And even the expenses from a well done plan could only be justified by a compelling reason to have gone to war in the first place. The presence of WMDs or lack of them doesn't change the fact that a hawkish White House did a bit of fudging on their rationale to go to war, and then hired ad executives to sell that war to the American people to build popular support.

[quote name='Khaiy' timestamp='1304380776' post='4805704']
Health care reform, whatever you think of it or the political capital/ time requried to get it, is a pretty monumental achievement.

I'd come to the UK and take a look at the NHS before you guys get too excited about health care reform.

After over 50 years of paying national insurance every month, which is about £60-£70 in todays money on a normal wage, my mother still had to pay privately for her hip replacements unless she was willing to wait in agonising pain for about two years.
[/quote]

Before you start claiming that all government led health care reform is awful, I'd go to Japan and take a look there. After paying for their nationally regulated insurance, they get high quality low cost care, with very little waiting. I remember the story of a journalist in Japan who got in to see one of the top-rated spinal specialists within a week of his calling to make an appointment. There are still issues, namely that their doctors are paid too little (and getting increasingly angry about it), but quality and access to care aren't what are suffering under their system.

Besides, middling to low quality reform isn't ideal, but it's still better than what we've had. Fewer people had access to care every year, and it became more expensive-- both the care itself and the cost of insurance. Insurance companies had a great time taking premiums until people needed care, and then retracting their coverage for BS techincality reasons. Care got worse and harder to get, while insurance company profits soared. A painful 2 year wait is better than never getting it at all, and I bet that the out-of-pocket costs are lower in the UK than here.

This isn't assassination.

Thank God we've got the assassin's word that he resisted capture in a manner requiring deadly force!

That is not the question that I asked. Which of the UN resolutions do you consider a lie?

That's the wrong question. The right question is "which of the UN resolutions permitted coalition forces to conduct an invasion"?

The had been saying they would let inspectors in for a decade, and the times they did let them in they weren't allowed to inspect everything.

Prior to the invasion, the previous inspectors, investigative journalists visiting the sealed sites, and most importantly US and western intelligence agencies all agreed that Iraq had no WMD capability and in no way posed a threat to the west. The WMD story was told despite intelligence services informing their leaders of this.

Before you start claiming that all government led health care reform is awful, I'd go to Japan and take a look there. After paying for their nationally regulated insurance, they get high quality low cost care, with very little waiting. I remember the story of a journalist in Japan who got in to see one of the top-rated spinal specialists within a week of his calling to make an appointment. There are still issues, namely that their doctors are paid too little (and getting increasingly angry about it), but quality and access to care aren't what are suffering under their system.

For every good anecdote like this, someone could trot out a bad one. I've heard horror stories about the Japanese system, from utterly incompetent doctors to oncologists who would rather keep cancers secret than disturb their patients with the bad news.

Besides, middling to low quality reform isn't ideal, but it's still better than what we've had. Fewer people had access to care every year, and it became more expensive-- both the care itself and the cost of insurance. Insurance companies had a great time taking premiums until people needed care, and then retracting their coverage for BS techincality reasons. Care got worse and harder to get, while insurance company profits soared. A painful 2 year wait is better than never getting it at all, and I bet that the out-of-pocket costs are lower in the UK than here.
[/quote]

Survival rates in the United States for most conditions and cancers are better in the United States than the UK (and indeed most of the developed world). Likewise, when accidental deaths are factored out (workplace accidents, gunshot wounds, etc), life expectancy begins to reach parity with Europe, and that factors into account lack of access to care. In other words, the socialized health care systems manage to do worse than the US system, even though too many citizens here are uninsured or unable to afford health care.

We need real health care reform, to be sure, but the argument that "a painful 2 year wait is better than never getting it at all" holds very little water. At any rate, Europe's health care systems are only going to provide less, not more, as Europe becomes older, poorer, less dynamic, and responsible for its own national security. America's gaze is turning to the Pacific, where its future hopes lie. Enjoy your two-year waits while you still can, my European friends

Again, as stated three times above, that wasn't the part of the resolution that was violated. The resolution did not require the existence of weapons.
The resolution required access, which was denied.

The resolution did not permit invasion as a method of implementation though. Which resolution gave permission to carry out an invasion?
The Iraq war was sold to the public via the rationale of WMD's, which was known by everyone in power to be a blatant lie at the time.

Afghanistan had a completely different mission. Usama was not the goal, it has been and remains the dismantlement of the terrorist organization and the ending the use of Afghanistan as a base for terrorist operations.[/quote]Again, which resolution gave permission to carry out an invasion?
BTW, The previous Afghan government asked for proof that they were entangled with the 9/11 terrorists, and no proof was given to them.
Also "Al Qaeda" isn't an "organisation" as such. Intelligence reports always refer to "the broad Islamic extremist network linked to al Qaida".

Again, which resolution gave permission to carry out an invasion?

Permission is not necessary to combat national security threats. War is the breakdown of law. No one can grant permission, by definition.

[quote name='Hodgman' timestamp='1304389985' post='4805775']Again, which resolution gave permission to carry out an invasion?

Permission is not necessary to combat national security threats. War is the breakdown of law. No one can grant permission, by definition.[/quote]Then why did the US ask the UN for permission first, before being knocked back and then pulling the "imminent threat" card and going it alone?
Frob keeps quoting UN resolutions as if they were the justification for war -- the US tried to use these as justification for a UN sanctioned invasion, but the UN wouldn't give the green light to it. So instead they kept pumping out the propaganda to everyone about WMDs and went ahead without authorisation from anyone.


Sorry, but there's a lot of laws, treaties and conventions regarding war. That statement is so unfounded that it beggars belief that someone would present it seriously. There's no way to even have a discussion if you're not grounded in reality...


Also, Iraq wasn't a national security threat -- your own intelligence services were telling you so.
Afghanistan asked for proof that they were a threat, or in any way connected to the 9/11 terrorism, and no proof was given.
While we're at it, can you dig up a source for the claim that Bin Laden has admitted to planning 9/11?

[quote name='cowsarenotevil' timestamp='1304319738' post='4805305']What makes you think he's been dead for years?

French, Australian, Saudi and Pakistani intelligence said so.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai said so.
Pakistani presidents Asif Ali Zardari and Pervez Musharraf said so.
Boston University and the Australian National University said so.
FBI Counterterrorism chief Dale Watson said so.
The CIA disbanded it's Bin Laden unit five years ago.

I doubt that he's been dead for a while, AQ or some similar organization would've done something like step up attack against coalition forces in either Iraq or Afghanistan in revenge and would've made it well known why they were doing it.

He reportedly died peacefully of disease + natural causes, not coalition bombs.
[/quote]

Karzai, Zardari and Musharraf have zero credibility. The CIA disbanded it's bin Laden unit because Bush said he wasn't concerned about bin Laden. <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/02/bush-bin-laden/">FLASHBACK: Bush On Bin Laden: ‘I Really Just Don’t Spend That Much Time On Him’</a>

If the assault was staged, why didn't the Bush administration stage one of their own so as to take credit for his death? Already Bush supporters are trying to steal credit from Obama, some members of Congress have even gone as far as issuing statements vindicating the use of torture, claiming that torture provided the intelligence that lead to the successful assault (even though it would be more accurate to say that torture delayed getting the intelligence)... <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/02/right-reax-bin-laden/">Right Rushes To Praise Bush For Obama’s Order To Kill Bin Laden</a>