• "Lancet" study into Iraqi deaths grossly exaggerated: new study estimates 151 000 violent deaths March 03 - June 06

Thanks Lupin3

 

You use the argument "Well whats your alternative?" Now I do think that's an important question but I also see it as a side question and commonly used as a tactic to change the topic. Because the topic is the Last Superpowers view of the Iraq war.

 

I came to this site to see if the arguments that hold this site up also hold water.

 

People here didn't start with the "its a war for democracy" the argument particularly from Keza (never from Arthur) was that the war was a humanitarian war. I argued with Arthur when he stated that the war was going well.

 

The argument became "its a war for democracy" My part in this is to ask again who is the leading personality in the democratic revolution and which are the democratic parties. (now talk about silences)

 

Alternatives. I was recently reading an interview of the previous leader of the SCIRI. He was saying that what was needed was for the US to stop saving Saddam. He cites 3 occasions post Gulf war one where Saddam could have been overthrown or assassinated but that the US came to his rescue.

 

One of the reasons that the US decided to Liberate Iraq rather than let the Iraqis play a roll was to sideline parties like SCIRI something that they have been unable to do.

 

About a year ago SCIRI put democracy into their platform. Up until then they had maintained the Iranian position.

 

I say this because its necessary to remember what the options were at the time of the invasion. Post Saddam it was always likely that SCIRI would play a dominant role. At the time they had no democratic credentials and it will be interesting to see if the ones they have now stick.

 

My question is still open. Last Superpower contributors state over and over that there's a democratic revolution going on in Iraq. Who is the leading personality of the democratic revolution? and which parties are leading the struggle for democracy? If you can answer these questions then the follow up is why don't the major political parties of Iraq practice internal democracy?

 

 

Steve, I'm sorry if I haven't made myself clear:  the topic of this thread is the cost of the Iraq war, and in particular your question of it's worth.  I have shown this question is itself a groundless diversion.  You continue to introduce new and contradictory alternatives, which demonstrate a lack of seriousness in addressing the issue and fail to ground your critique of the war's cost, as expressed in the question you asked.

Now it is you changing the topic, once again raising historical analogies in an implied argument, rather than any actual argument itself.  It might be interesting to debate the necessity of a leading figure to a democratic revolution, and then too whether such a figure exists in Iraq, but that is not the topic of this thread.