Taiwan anti-war sentiment among the lowest in the world?

The fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq has just passed and protests have been staged at various locations. Although far smaller in scale, these echo the February 15 2003 protests where large anti-war protests were held in many countries around the world.

But not here in Taiwan.

Are Taiwanese too concerned with domestic matters to be outraged by the international tragedy that the US-led invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq has produced? Is it because of the desire to maintain warm ties with America due to Taiwan’s uneasy relationship with China?

And what of the foreign community? Are all ex-pat Americans hard line Republicans? Are the rest of us simply apathetic?

I think the Taiwanese were working.

there’s a war somewhere? i didn’t see it on TVBS, so are you sure?

anyway, its not my concern. i don’t think my family knows anybody there.

They may also have doubts about what a protest in Taiwan would accomplish. The Bush administration is not known for changing its policies due to street protests in the US. The Taiwanese may wonder whether street protests in Taiwan are likely to carry any more weight.

I guess they figured nobody could possibly top Lynn Miles burning his passport in front of AIT (I wonder what they told him when he reapplied for a new one there? “So…you ‘lost’ your passport, huh?”)

Lefties have to march to give their lives “meaning.”

Kudos to the Taiwanese.

The tragedy of Afghanistan? Given that 4 million refugees who had lived lives of tragedy for 20 plus years moved back to the country and given what a disaster the Taliban was, I think we can safely assume that NO ONE disputes the great success and the positive results however imperfect of the US led war in Afghanistan. The war in Iraq is different of course but does anyone think that the numbers of dead were not greater under Saddam and that removing him was a bad thing? Why do you need others to march with you? Start your own march? Or are you afraid of looking like the fool that you are if by yourself?

Count me as a hardline Republican. I cannot speak for the rest of the expat community.

Don’t speak for me dude.

[quote]
…does anyone think that the numbers of dead were not greater under Saddam and that removing him was a bad thing? [/quote]
Uh, me. And pretty much anyone properly informed on the facts. Are you insane Fred? Saddam ran a relatively peaceful country compared to the mess there now. Upwards of a million Iraqis have dies because of this invasion/occupation. It’s not a war, because Iraq cannot surrender.

Show me your evidence that Saddam killed anywhere near a million people. What tripe.

Or sleeping.

Horror of horrors. You have a deal on that!

Quote:

…does anyone think that the numbers of dead were not greater under Saddam and that removing him was a bad thing?

[quote]Uh, me. And pretty much anyone properly informed on the facts. Are you insane Fred? Saddam ran a relatively peaceful country compared to the mess there now. Upwards of a million Iraqis have dies because of this invasion/occupation. It’s not a war, because Iraq cannot surrender.

Show me your evidence that Saddam killed anywhere near a million people. What tripe.[/quote]

Did Saddam start the war against Iran in 1980? Did not 1 million people on both sides die? Did Saddam invade Kuwait? Did Saddam use poison gas and severe oppression against the Kurds throughout a 20-year period? Did Saddam not put down the Shia uprising in the South violently? Did not up to 500,000 die during this one event? Did Saddam not throughout his entire reign use torture, murder, rape and such to control his cowed population? How many children died of malnutrition while he used a corrupt UN to build palaces? How many women died while he ignored the need to buy medicine but chose to buy off cronies instead? The definitive death toll by reputable agencies is now 65,000 in Iraq over the past four years including during the bombing, invasion and subsequent occupation. Many of the victims are also included despite being better classified as victims of crime.

Well, let’s examine the fact that apparently our friend little Dear Peter seems to have nary a clue about (and why I needed to say that and add to redundancy is unclear to me)…

[quote=“fred smith”]
Did Saddam start the war against Iran in 1980? Did not 1 million people on both sides die? Did Saddam invade Kuwait? Did Saddam use poison gas and severe oppression against the Kurds throughout a 20-year period? Did Saddam not put down the Shia uprising in the South violently? Did not up to 500,000 die during this one event? Did Saddam not throughout his entire reign use torture, murder, rape and such to control his cowed population? How many children died of malnutrition while he used a corrupt UN to build palaces? How many women died while he ignored the need to buy medicine but chose to buy off cronies instead? [/quote]

Is this the same Saddam who was put in power and that was supported by the US government against Iran in the first place?

So if the US put Saddam in power, you will have no problem proving that right? I’ll give you a hint… our embassy was downgraded in 1968. Strange kind of reaction when you have one of your own guys taking over power. Let’s go for urban myth No. 2. According to www.iraqwatch.org, the US did not mostly arm Saddam, the Russians, Chinese, French and Germans did. But the US did offer him a lot of loans during that time as did the Persian Gulf nations and Western Europeans. Back to you. Try to get an education first though, your ignorance is embarrassing.

[quote=“Tyc00n”][quote=“fred smith”]
Did Saddam start the war against Iran in 1980? Did not 1 million people on both sides die? Did Saddam invade Kuwait? Did Saddam use poison gas and severe oppression against the Kurds throughout a 20-year period? Did Saddam not put down the Shia uprising in the South violently? Did not up to 500,000 die during this one event? Did Saddam not throughout his entire reign use torture, murder, rape and such to control his cowed population? How many children died of malnutrition while he used a corrupt UN to build palaces? How many women died while he ignored the need to buy medicine but chose to buy off cronies instead? [/quote]

Is this the same Saddam who was put in power and that was supported by the US government against Iran in the first place?[/quote]
Yes but he was on our side then. Come on man, keep up. :laughing:

I asked you for evidence Fred. And all you give me is a bunch of questions.

Seems so, yes. That is the UN’s opinion for sure.

Yes. Some say up to a million Iranians. But I don’t see the value of comparing that number to the the current death toll. Saddam was not in a position to start another major war when the US invaded.

Yes.

Yes.

Well, on a quick search, I found this on Wikipedia, which references this from HRW.

That’s less than a half million, isn’t it?

Pretty much, yes. He also delivered a secular society and relatively high standard of living. As dictators go, he was not the worst and not the best either. But since when did the US invade countries because they are run by dictators? That is not US policy at all because it cannot be applied fairly. We all know why the US invaded.

I don’t know, but this was certainly the expected effect of the sanctions against Iraq between the two American invasions. Shortchanged dictators seldom share with the poor.

It is not the “definitive” count, but the confirmed count. The true number is much higher by just about all informed opinions.
The one million figure I tossed out came from here:

Here is the source, which has quite a bit of detail on the methodology behind the numbers and lots of links to sources.
countercurrents.org/iraq-polya070207.htm

I’m not saying this source is absolutely right, but I do strongly believe the mortal cost of the invasion is much closer to a million that to 65,000.

You read the John Hopkins/Lancet thing, didn’t you Fred? They said 650,000 or more. But I’m sure your numbers and reasoning must be better than those people with MDs and PhD and actual expertise in the subject. Here is a small comment on the J.H. study in question:

[quote]The Chronicle of Higher Education has an excellent article following up on the Lancet study. That study is still basically unchallenged, by the way; however many epidemiologists you ask, they’re all going to give the same answer, that it was good science.

The Chronicle’s angle is on the strange fact that the Lancet appears to have shown that the Iraq War made an already horrible state of affairs much worse, and that nobody seems to think that this is something worth thinking about. There was a brief kerfuffle of interest around the time of publication, but other than that, the reaction of the world’s media to the fact that we spent $150bn on trying to help the Iraqis but did it so badly that we increased their death rate by over 50%, appears to be “ho hum”. Here is the source.[/quote]

0: the number of people who started the war or their close family members who have died in the Iraq war.

So the Hussein boys don’t count?

So the Hussein boys don’t count?[/quote]

They didn’t start the war.

So the Hussein boys don’t count?[/quote]

They didn’t start the war.[/quote]

To be fair, they didn’t exactly do much to stop it or prevent it either. But, I suppose you will probably say that that wasn’t their problem. Well, seems like if you’re violating a shitload of UN sanctions, gassing, raping, torturing, persecuting, beating, starving, and killing your citizens some might say you had it coming. Violence begets violence.

too many: number of people who claim either Saddam Hussein or the Devil made them do it.

Hussein and the Baathists rose to power on their own. However after the Iranian Revolution and beginning of the hostage crisis in ’79 we needed a way to strike at the Iranians without involving ourselves in a protracted war. Hussein hated Khomeini and was obviously fearful of a Shi’a revolution in his own Shi’a dominated country. So…yes you’re damn right we backed him in the war against Iran and so what? I have no clue why fred cares about a million dead Iranians as Iran is clearly our enemy then and now.

Helping fund and train a local army to fight a distant enemy is a normal part of warfare and has been throughout history. We did the same thing in Afghanistan in the ‘80s. And before you say it no we did not fund bin Laden, he had plenty of support from Muslims and did not need to dirty his hands with infidel money. However there is no doubt some of the Mujahedin who later joined the Taliban and al-Qaeda did indeed receive US funding and/or training. But guess what we didn’t have a crystal ball to tell us they might eventually use their new skills against us. So it’s our own fault, right? Isn’t that what liberals imply when they say al-Qaeda was “created” by the US? LOL

The problem with Iraq is that we just can’t seem to quell the violence and the Iraqi police and military are still torturing prisoners just as they did under Saddam. That isn’t our fault but then again if one of the reasons we invaded Iraq was to stop the police/defense forces from torturing prisoners, then we have failed in that regard. Abu Ghraib was nothing compared to the what the Iraqis are still doing to themselves. Oh no! She’s pointing at his genitals! Call the Red Crescent!

Funny that. The author of the article I posted just above has just published another similar piece.

Four Years: One Million Iraqi Deaths
By Gideon Polya
22 March, 2007


countercurrents.org/iraq-polya220307.htm

Here is his profile:

[quote]Dr Gideon Polya published some 130 works in a 4 decade scientific career, most recently a huge pharmacological reference text “Biochemical Targets of Plant Bioactive Compounds” (Taylor & Francis, New York & London, 2003). He is a Melbourne scientist and writer and is currently editing a completed book on global avoidable mortality (numerous articles on this matter can be found by a simple Google search for “Gideon Polya” and on his websites:
members.optusnet.com.au/~gpolya/links.html and
globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/ ).[/quote]

But I must be wrong and you right, right Fred? Funny how we can both feel so strong about such wide apart claims isn’t it? I guess it depends who you trust: humanitarians (who are sometimes highly regarded scientists) or warmongers (who are sometimes published scientists with funding sources they’d rather you don’t take into account.)

But whistle Dixie and it all doesn’t matter, does it? Al Gore is a charlatan. He has to be. The only good scientist is a Bush scientist, and if The Lancet prints a study it’s because it’s been eaten through by bleeding heartworms from damn liberal establishment, so we have to wait for the official results from Nature. In the meantime, listed to what Rand Corp has to say. Trust in your leaders, God dammit.

Somebody should organize a peace demo in Taiwan, if it hasn’t been done yet. I think most farang living here are escape artists, so I guess they don’t wanna be reminded of what messed up countries they left behind.