That 650k number of Iraqi's killed since the invasion is BS, Deva. Don't be so sucked in by anti war propaganda that you can't be analytical enough to parse those numbers realistically.
Its been sliced and diced and analyzed by many groups who are anti-war and even they say the study is flawed. To put it in perspective, the 650k number would mean the following:
* It is larger than the total number of Americans killed during combat in every major conflict, from the Revolutionary War to the first Gulf War.
* It is more than double the combined number of civilians killed in the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.
* It is a larger number than were killed in Germany during five years (and 955,044 tons) of WWII bombing.
And of course, they actually identified 547 deaths in their survey to extrapolate these numbers. In otherwords, its BS.
I won't critique your point on whether they (U.S. soldiers) are justified to be killed by snipers or not, but ask yourself this: Would we leave if there wasn't violence in the country that threatened to destablize it (all accomplished by those who don't want to see democracy?) OF COURSE.
The real question is: What role does our occupation play in aggravating the violence? My guess: It is an excuse by those who are anti-democratic to attack
their own people. If (and when) we leave, the attacks will continue by those who want to re-instate a terrorist friendly government (i.e. fascist, like the taliban) so they can have a base of operations.
Its a fight. It will be ugly, and it is necessary. They either show up there, or in the U.K. or in the U.S. - And for what it is worth, Saddam needed to be removed for all the reasons we've discussed ad nasuem to date.
Those who don't think it was necessary probably also support non-action in darfur, or Iran, or even N. Korea as well (for instance). If there is to be the rule of law and it is respected in the international community, then action must be taken against those that would defy the international body for over 14 years directly, not support WMD inspections, etc.
To believe otherwise is foolish and dangerous to this thing we call the U.N. - which is already well on its way to obscurity and influence due to the way it has been ineffectual in dealing with real crises.
In the end, post removal of Saddam and the restablization of Iraq is important. Lots of mistakes have been made. Things that we can fix, we have to (this is what is referred to as "completing the mission") and the things that the Iraqi's can do, they will have to. We won't be there forever - withdrawl has ALWAYS been on the table (the U.S. has never intended to create an Iraqi colony), but the question is: under what circumstances?
Those circumstances are constantly under evaluation (and this is a criticism of the Bush administration that he deserves) and yet, this is the reality of situation - ground situations change, politics change, causing strategies to change. This is an inevitable part of being an occupying force with the challenge of rebuilding an infrastructure of a country.
We are also legally obligated, under the Geneva convention to be there until the Iraqi's can self govern and sustain themselves.
You all who don't agree with this point of view, that's your right.
But it doesn't mean you are
right, if you know what I mean.
On a personal note, I think it is funny and quite ironic that those who consider themselves liberal (i.e. probably against the removal of Saddam, against Bush, etc.) are "Liberal" enough to let someone like Saddam stay in power and viloate international law rather than "change" the status quo.
Sounds kinda conservative to me, actually.
rob.
