100,000 dead in Irag [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

W00lygimp

10-28-2004, 04:18 PM

1,000,000,000 people due to die from smoking.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=965

250,000 die from Alchohol related accidents within last 10 years.
http://www.nh-dwi.com/caip-206.htm

250,000 die from heart attacks each year.
http://sln.fi.edu/biosci/healthy/stats.html

I'm not trying to downplay the death's in Iraq. What i'm trying to say 87% of the american population supported the invasion in Iraq, unless you belong to that 13% which is very unlikely-- You shouldn't be posting unfortunate news to make the president look bad. It's a ashame you are playing on peoples demise for political gain. I guarantee if it was a democratic president in office now, you wouldn't be posting this.

Before we went into the war we knew there would be casulties on both sides, so I don't know. I hate how the american people support something, and when things get tough they cut and run and blame it on the President. We lack resolve, we are like a bunch of kids who are quick to place the blame elsewhere.

tek

10-28-2004, 04:39 PM

That's a good start...

Victor

10-28-2004, 04:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What i'm trying to say 87% of the american population supported the invasion in Iraq, unless you belong to that 13% which is very unlikely

[/ QUOTE ] Show me links to where it says 87% of the population supported this war. I am certainly one of the 13% as are most of my family, friends, relatives and acquaintances.

[ QUOTE ]
You shouldn't be posting unfortunate news to make the president look bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

The president NEEDS to be made to look bad for his poor decision making, lack of planning, and inherent deception from this war. This is no where near the amount of death that was estimated. War NEEDS to be made to look bad and it should be apparent that war should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

[ QUOTE ]
It's a ashame you are playing on peoples demise for political gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not posting this for political reasons. This post is to let people know what is happening. Politically, one man can say, "Gee, thats a lot of carnage I do not want to support war," while another can say, "well, we got a bad guy out of power who was a threat and this situation will help everyone in the long run."

Shame on YOU for implying my intentions, assuming my political stance and agenda, and attempting to profess my intentions.

[ QUOTE ]
I guarantee if it was a democratic president in office now, you wouldn't be posting this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely false. You do not know me, or anything that I stand for and you have no right to assume and publicly state that you do.

FWIW I will enlighten you somewhat: I have never voted, have no party affiliation and only began paying attention to politics/current events a few years ago.

GWB

10-28-2004, 04:43 PM

This brings up a question I've always wrestled with:

There is a trade off between millions of people living under a brutal dictatorship, and the deaths of a small portion of those people in the effort to have those millions of people live in freedom.

Assuming deaths are minimized as much as practicable, how many "people years" of freedom do you need to purchase with each innocent death for the innocent deaths to be worth it?

Think in terms of the liberation of Europe from Hitler if you want.

Utah

10-28-2004, 04:46 PM

hmm....even the article itself said the accuracy of the data was in question. But, knock yourself out believing it.

The_Tracker

10-28-2004, 04:48 PM

Well, being one of the 13% of Americans that disagreed with our invasion of Iraq I can say that this is a sad statistic.

Don't forget the 1,200 American soliders that have died in Iraq either. For what I still do not know.

So Saadam is not in power. Whoopie. I am sure if we hadn't acted then America would be a smoldering pile of rubble at the hands of Saadam and Iraq by now. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

The_Tracker

10-28-2004, 04:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Think in terms of the liberation of Europe from Hitler if you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

GWB, you are such a basketcase. Saadam WAS NOT Hitler. It's not even close. How would you possibly compare Iraqs' military with the might of Hitler and the Nazis? It is ridiculous to the point of laughable.

GWB

10-28-2004, 04:59 PM

wacki

10-28-2004, 05:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Think in terms of the liberation of Europe from Hitler if you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

GWB, you are such a basketcase. Saadam WAS NOT Hitler. It's not even close. How would you possibly compare Iraqs' military with the might of Hitler and the Nazis? It is ridiculous to the point of laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

pot... meet kettle.

GWB is correct with the Hitler comparison. Saddam killed 1 million of his own people and 4 million people fled his country during Saddams rule. Iraq only has 20 million. Just because Saddam didn't have the military might that hitler did, doesn't make him any less evil or dangerous. I would even agree with people that said Saddam was even more evil than Hitler. Hitlers angst was against a specific section of the human population. Saddam didn't care about anyone, not even his own family. And I would even argue that Saddam has the potential to be much more dangerous since nuclear technology seems to be more and more common.

The_Tracker

10-28-2004, 06:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Think in terms of the liberation of Europe from Hitler if you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

GWB, you are such a basketcase. Saadam WAS NOT Hitler. It's not even close. How would you possibly compare Iraqs' military with the might of Hitler and the Nazis? It is ridiculous to the point of laughable.

[/ QUOTE ]

pot... meet kettle.

GWB is correct with the Hitler comparison. Saddam killed 1 million of his own people and 4 million people fled his country during Saddams rule. Iraq only has 20 million. Just because Saddam didn't have the military might that hitler did, doesn't make him any less evil or dangerous. I would even agree with people that said Saddam was even more evil than Hitler. Hitlers angst was against a specific section of the human population. Saddam didn't care about anyone, not even his own family. And I would even argue that Saddam has the potential to be much more dangerous since nuclear technology seems to be more and more common.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I disagree.

Please provide evidence that Saadam indeed killed 1 million of his own people. That is an astonishingly high number.
And the fact that Iraq did not have the military might of Hitlers' army certainly makes him LESS dangerous of a dictator/leader.

The fact that Iraq had been under sanctions for 12 years, 3/4 of the country was a no-fly zone, had no airforce, had no sizable army, outdated equipment and weapons and enemies on nearly all boarders, made him little threat.

Saadam was a sitting duck and he knew it. He had no aspirations of taking over the world and knew if he stepped out of line the US would be right there to slap him back in place.

Please provide your evidence that Saadam sought out nuclear weapons and if in fact he were able to attain them that he would have even used them.

It is also ridiculous to say that Saadam didn't care about anyone including his family. From what I have read, and the photos I have seen, Saadam was very close with his family and was considered a good father.

I don't think Saadam was a good person, or did ANYTHING good for Iraq or the Iraqi people. But, to claim that he was capable of thrusting the entire world into turmoil as did the Third Reich is again, laughable.

But, by all means, continue drinking the kool-aid.

Bez

10-28-2004, 06:36 PM

Saddam was a bastard but comparing him to Hitler sees you lose all credibility. Hitler brought about a World War; are you really saying Saddam had the power to do this? By comparing Saddam with Hitler, you are also putting GWB up on a pedestal with the likes of Winston Churchill. I personally find this very insulting.

wacki

10-28-2004, 06:38 PM

"From what I have read, and the photos I have seen, Saadam was very close with his family and was considered a good father."

Wow..... You are out of your mind.

Rana is one of his daughters.

"In August 1995, Rana and her husband Hussein Kamel al Majid al Majid and Raghad and her husband, Saddam Kamel Majid, defected to Jordan, taking their children with them. They returned to Iraq when they received assurances that Saddam Hussein would pardon them. Within three days of their return in February 1996,

both of the Majid brothers were executed."

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Saddam_Hussein

Here are some videos of what Kerry thought about saddam.
rtsp://real.stream2you.com/rnc/RNC162004W.rm
rtsp://real.stream2you.com/rnc/RNC172004W.rm

You do know that Saddam tortured his scientist... some of them to death in order to get them to work on developing a nuke. Discovery channel interviewed one of them.

Do a google search on Saddam death million.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5773

I could go on, but every post I've read of yours is so far out there I think I'm just wasting my time.

He made his sons kill people and watch rapes before they hit puberty. He killed husbands of his daughters against their will and ......... Saddam... Good father... my ass...

Lastchance, this is one of those times I want to cross that line you talked about.

Danenania

10-28-2004, 06:39 PM

Not to mention the numerous other cruel dictatorships all over the world that the USA doesn't sanction or invade. Our message seems to be: "Be our friends and you can get away with anything!" Fairly despicable.

The_Tracker

10-28-2004, 06:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"From what I have read, and the photos I have seen, Saadam was very close with his family and was considered a good father."

Wow..... You are out of your mind.

Rana is one of his daughters.

"In August 1995, Rana and her husband Hussein Kamel al Majid al Majid and Raghad and her husband, Saddam Kamel Majid, defected to Jordan, taking their children with them. They returned to Iraq when they received assurances that Saddam Hussein would pardon them. Within three days of their return in February 1996,

both of the Majid brothers were executed."

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Saddam_Hussein

Here are some videos of what Kerry thought about saddam.
<a href="rtsp://real.stream2you.com/rnc/RNC162004W.rm" target="_blank">rtsp://real.stream2you.com/rnc/RNC162004W.rm</a>
<a href="rtsp://real.stream2you.com/rnc/RNC172004W.rm" target="_blank">rtsp://real.stream2you.com/rnc/RNC172004W.rm</a>

You do know that Saddam tortured his scientist... some of them to death in order to get them to work on developing a nuke. Discovery channel interviewed one of them.

Do a google search on Saddam death million.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5773

I could go on, but every post I've read of yours is so far out there I think I'm just wasting my time.

He made his sons kill people and watch rapes before they hit puberty. He killed husbands of his daughters against their will and ......... Saddam... Good father... my ass...

Lastchance, this is one of those times I want to cross that line you talked about.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are not going to goad me into defending Saadam. He was an evil individual. I am not going to debate that with you.

I am stating simply, Saadam WAS NOT comparable to Hitler. Period. You either don't know enough about Saadam and his power, or Hitler and his power. It's not even comparable.

Still laughing at you and GWB.

wacki

10-28-2004, 07:00 PM

And as normal, I will laugh at you

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/01/sprj.irq.blair/

PITTM

10-28-2004, 07:51 PM

100,000 people dying=unfortunate. good call dude.

rj

The_Tracker

10-28-2004, 07:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
And as normal, I will laugh at you

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/01/sprj.irq.blair/

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, I can't think of ANY reason at all that Tony Blair would be comparing Saadam to Hitler.

Not any (no WMDs) reason (saving his ass) at all.

Victor

10-28-2004, 08:09 PM

Hello Utah,

[ QUOTE ]
hmm....even the article itself said the accuracy of the data was in question. But, knock yourself out believing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Believing what? The report is documented correctly and the accuracy is in question....just like it says.

At no point did I make any claims toward the veracity of the information provided. I simply posted a news report for discussion. I am clearly aware that any sort of news is suspect. This one even comes right out and says it. Never did I dispute this.

Regardless, the point is that many people have died in Iraq and it gets absolutely no mainstream press about the sheer logistics of how many and who (woman, children, elderly) that have perished. Even if the report is off by 50%-75% that is still a ton of people and its clearly not getting any safer over there.

Victor

10-28-2004, 08:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
ust because Saddam didn't have the military might that hitler did, doesn't make him any less evil or dangerous.

[/ QUOTE ]

So an evil man with one of the strongest militaries ever is not as dangerous as another man who is (questionably) a few degrees more evil with virtually no military. Right. Please explain how Saddaam could possibly have been more dangerous than Hitler. Absolutely, ludicrous. If I was jewish I would be extremely offended, as it is I am just dumbfounded by your logic.

The once and future king

10-28-2004, 08:27 PM

ROFL.

I am a dictator of an arabic backwater. (Granted I have oil reserves)

I am a fascist dictator of the entirity of western europe excepting Britian and have better military technology than than those I have conquered/oppose me

We are equaly dangerous.

YOU CANT BE SERIOUS

To compare Saddam to Hitler in terms of historicaly relative power has to be the most intellectualy vacuos thing I have ever seen on this forum. Shame on you.

Utah

10-28-2004, 08:29 PM

"At no point did I make any claims toward the veracity of the information provided. I simply posted a news report for discussion. I am clearly aware that any sort of news is suspect. This one even comes right out and says it. Never did I dispute this. "

Then I am at a complete loss why you would waste everyone's time posting it.

And, of course, we know this is not what you were doing. Your title of the post was "100,000 Dead in Iraq." It wasn't - hey here is a interesting article. Do you believe it? At least be honest about what you were doing. It is plainly clear.

tolbiny

10-28-2004, 08:52 PM

I will support Victor in his claim to be part of the 13%. I have known him for several years and he indeed was against this war prior to its beginning.

Victor

10-28-2004, 09:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Then I am at a complete loss why you would waste everyone's time posting it

[/ QUOTE ]

I posted it to show that there are a lot of people dead in Iraq. Whether it is 100,000 or 50,000 thats a massive loss of life in a year. This is the first time I have seen a news report solely reporting loss of Iraqi civilian life.

As for the accuracy of the report, it is explained in the report that the numbers could be skewed. Nowhere did I dispute this. It is part of the report.

I will concede that the title of my post could be construed as intending to support the claims. (even so, the claims do come with a disclaimer in the article.) In actuality, I simply named it the same as the headline, which was clearly intended to elicit interest/emotion.

PITTM

10-28-2004, 09:33 PM

small amount = 100k? maybe you should reevaluate your statement. Comparing Saddam to Hitler is literally insane. Hitler had taken over many many other countries in Europe. Saddam had taken over 0 other countries. Hitler gassed millions and millions of jews, Saddam killed maybe a million people. They dont even come close in comparison.

rj

PITTM

10-28-2004, 09:39 PM

wacki meet wackiness. GWB was completely incorrect in his comparison of Saddam to Hitler. Hitler took over nearly all of Europe. Saddam took over nothing. Just because they are both bad people and murderers does not make them the same. I would say that Saddam was at most 10% the threat the Hitler ever was, and that is generous, unless of course youve been completely brainwashed by conservative rhetoric, in which case you shouldnt be trying to make legitimate political arguments.

rj

MMMMMM

10-28-2004, 09:44 PM

"Whether it is 100,000 or 50,000 thats a massive loss of life in a year."

Let's not forget the part early in the article which mentioned non-official estimates putting the figure at 10K to 30K.

Also, you could at least have properly put a question mark in the title of the post. Plus, you topped of the slant by titling your link: "worse".

Utah is right, it is pretty clear why you posted it.

Victor

10-28-2004, 10:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Utah is right, it is pretty clear why you posted it.

[/ QUOTE ]

ummm....why did I post it? I seem to have forgottoen myself. Thankfully, MMMMMMM, you have appeared, as I have certainly recognizeed you as the foremost authority on intent on these boards. So, please enlighten this poor confused pacifist?

Utah

10-28-2004, 10:42 PM

Hi Victor,

Okay, that makes sense. I think the loss of life is an important issue to discuss. I will forget the method of how the issue was brought up LOL /images/graemlins/smile.gif

What is an acceptable number of dead? Lets forget for a second whether the U.S. should have been involved because it is unimportant to the question of the Iraqi people. I think we can agree that Iraqi is better off as a whole without Saddam? Yes? If so, what is an acceptable price?

Death is a game of tradeoffs whether we admit it or not. In the U.S. we accept a huge number of deaths so we can drink and have the convenience of cars. Why would no one care if I posted 50,000 dead a year in the U.S.?

MMMMMM

10-28-2004, 10:46 PM

You know why.

tolbiny

10-28-2004, 10:56 PM

I think there are two ways to define an "acceptable" loss of life- if the loss could have been reasonably signifigantly less, and also the projections made when entering the conflict.
Concerning the Iraq war there is a growing feeling that a larger occuping force could have limited the insurgancy earlier and secured weapons that were looted and are now being used by the insurgency.

Victor

10-28-2004, 11:12 PM

Hi Utah,

Thank you for the reasonable discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
I think we can agree that Iraqi is better off as a whole without Saddam? Yes?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very questionable. Certainly, many political prisoners and people at odds with the sadaam regime are far better off. But, there are many that are not better off, namely those who are dead, relatives of dead, or devoid of all property and wealth. However, Iraq, and all of its occupants certainly now have an infinite more potential to be infinitely better off. This has not matriculated yet and whether or not it will occur is still up in the air and dependent on many stubborn opposing forces. In time, though, it should get better.

[ QUOTE ]
What is an acceptable number of dead?... If so, what is an acceptable price......Death is a game of tradeoffs whether we admit it or not. In the U.S. we accept a huge number of deaths so we can drink and have the convenience of cars. Why would no one care if I posted 50,000 dead a year in the U.S.??

[/ QUOTE ]

GWB asked the same question above. It is impossible for me to answer. It is very disturbing to think about. I know this is a copout but it is very hard for me to reconcile many innocent lives for my own convenience. So, when you ask, "what is an acceptable number?" my answer is. "it depends."

It depends on the cause. In this cause (Iraqi war) I think that 1 innocent death is too many. If a country was a significant threat to me, my family, or my freedom, then that number would be significantly higher.

Non_Comformist

10-29-2004, 12:05 AM

The comparison was not betweem Hitler and Sadaam but that the US decided that the deaths of innocents and our own people was worth the liberation of Europe. The question he posed was could anyone quantify this calculation and if it would be easier to use WW2 instead of Iraq then do so.

Non_Comformist

10-29-2004, 12:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Utah is right, it is pretty clear why you posted it.

[/ QUOTE ]

ummm....why did I post it? I seem to have forgottoen myself. Thankfully, MMMMMMM, you have appeared, as I have certainly recognizeed you as the foremost authority on intent on these boards. So, please enlighten this poor confused pacifist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you titled the link "worse." It's fairly obvious.

Non_Comformist

10-29-2004, 12:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are two ways to define an "acceptable" loss of life- if the loss could have been reasonably signifigantly less, and also the projections made when entering the conflict.
Concerning the Iraq war there is a growing feeling that a larger occuping force could have limited the insurgancy earlier and secured weapons that were looted and are now being used by the insurgency.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you happen to catch the PBS special Rumsfeild's war? It was pretty enlightening and certainly food for thought in regards to your post.

Edge34

10-29-2004, 01:33 AM

"Those devoid of all property and wealth..."

You know who those people were 2 or even 5 years ago? Everyone NOT related to Saddam. In other words, most of the Iraqi population - things have been a mess over there LONG before this Prsident Bush took the Oval Office.

"What countries had he taken over?" (I understand this isn't in your post, Victor, but a question that has been posed here)...

Umm...well, in the 90s, he tried to take over Kuwait if that counts.

The idea of an "acceptable" number of deaths is, of course, a difficult idea to manage. Not one person, conservative, liberal, or moderate, will say they encourage death of innocents, and what many in the left-wing media will have you believe is that innocent Iraqis have either been intentionally or carelessly targeted by the US and other militaries - which is simply untrue. Iraq, and indeed, the entire Middle East region basically, has lived in a society of violent rule for a long time, and where somewhat peaceful rule exists, violence is often the preferred tool to bring about change. The level of violence we see now in Iraq is the same as what it would be if anybody had taken Saddam and his regime of terror out of power. And a questionable number of Iraqi citizens have lost their lives, because the reactionaries and remnants of Saddam's regime in Iraq don't know anything but violence. I agree that even one Iraqi dead without need is a shame, but this may be a case of "the greater good".

You claim that whether Iraq as a whole is better off without Saddam is questionable. Keep in mind that during Saddam's tenure, he ordered his son to have Iraqi SOCCER PLAYERS tortured and murdered if they did not perform to expectations. He had millions of Kurds brutally murdered for no reason other than whatever his twisted mind could come up with. And as was also stated in this thread, he forced a culture of murder, violence, and terror on his country, which of course did not ease tension in the region. If there is ever to be peace in this region, unfortunately and tragically, this is going to be one step in the procedure. Minimizing unnecessary deaths has always been the number 1 priority of the United States military, and I would have to assume, its allies. Given time, as you say Victor, the situation will improve, and it will be the result of the sacrifice, in some cases the ultimate sacrifice, of many people on both sides. Afghanistan, after years of Taliban rule, recently held their first free elections, and the first voter was a 19-year-old woman. Granted, losses have been fewer on our side in Afghanistan, but improvement can be made.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein did in fact have the potential to be a threat to the Middle East region, and even the world. The US military does its best to minimize innocent casualties, but in this type of battle there will be some. And the country will be better off in the end, somehow.

-Edge

Edge34

10-29-2004, 01:49 AM

The comparison between Saddam and Hitler is shockingly more accurate than you allow.

Hitler took over nearly all of Europe - very true. Of course, he didn't exactly do this all on his own, since Mussolini's Italy kinda helped out. Two large countries against a collection of mostly small countries, and France. I don't think Belgium stood much of a chance against them - it wasn't like it was a massive struggle for Belgium.

Don't forget that in the 1990s, Saddam Hussein invaided Kuwait, remember the Gulf War and Project Desert Storm? There is nothing to say he wouldn't try this again, given the opportunity, and he has always showed a penchant for senseless violence and terror.

Hitler had enormous numbers of Jews killed and interned in Germany. The Holocaust was the worst instance of genocide the world has ever seen, and hopefully ever will see, based on sheer numbers alone.

Hussein: Had somewhat fewer, but still immense numbers of Kurds murdered. Instituted policies in his own regime of murdering his own people, including torturing Iraq's national SOCCER PLAYERS for not performing up to snuff. Ran a regime of rape, murder, and terror for basically the duration of his stranglehold on Iraqi power. Ensured the majority of his people lived in terrible conditions and poverty, while having multiple palaces and statues erected in his honor.

Yeah, Saddam Hussein didn't have powers such as Italy and Japan by his side to physically take over other nations, but he didn't need it. His regime was instrumental in implanting the culture of violence in Iraq, and certainly empowering it in the entire Middle East. One could virtually guarantee that, given the opportunity, he'd likely at least attempt something like that, and its not like the man didn't have a history. Heck, the stories even match up with Hitler, who wasn't removed from power until after World War TWO, much as it took more than one attempt to remove Saddam. Both were blindly hateful of enormous numbers of people and took action on that blind hate.

Even WMD: Keep in mind Germany didn't have nuclear weapons during WWII, but they also never got the chance to use them in the hands of a powerful, evil dictator. (And yes, I understand we haven't come across a caveful of nukes in Iraq, but acting on the information at hand and in the interest of prevention, THAT is the reasoning behind WMDs).

This isn't conservative rhetoric, this is fact. Would you rather wait for another Hitler-esque war or attempt to cut it off at its source? The latter is the option we have taken, and would prove to be much less costly in war of this day and age.

-Edge

nothumb

10-29-2004, 02:21 AM

Ok Edge,

I will reply specifically to you but this is my general reply to this whole thread.

First, yeah, the link was posted in a somewhat slanted manner. However the OP is correct that nobody is really talking directly about how many Iraqis have died and anybody who brings it up is accused of being a Bush-hating, cheese eating surrender monkey. So shame on everybody.

Second, I don't think the comparison to Saddam and Hitler is tenable, and I think it's part of a larger rhetorical strategy (that originated within the highest level of the Bush administration, and looking over their statements on the matter will show this) that tries to compare this preemptive invasion to the reactionary conflict that we engaged in during WWII. It is simply not an accurate comparison for a number of reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't forget that in the 1990s, Saddam Hussein invaided Kuwait, remember the Gulf War and Project Desert Storm? There is nothing to say he wouldn't try this again, given the opportunity

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember Operation Desert Storm pretty clearly, what was this Project you speak of? But you're right, there's nothing to say that Saddam might not try to invade another country given the opportunity. Which is why we decimated his military, took a large portion of his country completely out of his control, and regularly bombed his feeble military installations. Does anyone here want to raise their hand and say Saddam had any chance, even the tiniest chance, of invading another country? I will poop in your pillowcase.

[ QUOTE ]
His regime was instrumental in implanting the culture of violence in Iraq, and certainly empowering it in the entire Middle East. One could virtually guarantee that, given the opportunity, he'd likely at least attempt something like that, and its not like the man didn't have a history. Heck, the stories even match up with Hitler, who wasn't removed from power until after World War TWO, much as it took more than one attempt to remove Saddam. Both were blindly hateful of enormous numbers of people and took action on that blind hate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'm sending you back to high school history class. What war other than WWII was Hitler in power for?

Saddam did like to think of himself as a sort of future-minded, secular Middle East leader. He would have loved to take over Iran and Kuwait and other nations. But his ideology and his motivations were very different from Hitler's. All indications are that Saddam did not blindly hate, but rather craved power and sought it tenaciously and without restraint. In some ways he was even more morally bankrupt than Hitler, if that is possible. However, I am not going to bother getting into such subtleties with someone who apparently believes Hitler was in power during WWI.

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't conservative rhetoric, this is fact. Would you rather wait for another Hitler-esque war or attempt to cut it off at its source? The latter is the option we have taken, and would prove to be much less costly in war of this day and age.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying Saddam was going to invade the Middle East, purge the Jews in Isreal, start a massive land war and bring other nations to their knees? Fat chance. You can't even find a Bush cabinet member who would make this argument. You are completely detached from reality, sir.

NT

Edge34

10-29-2004, 02:47 AM

May I say you did a wonderful job of replying to "the whole thread". "Poop in your pillowcase" was a real classic. And if you really want to argue semantics, I will apologize for my misuse of "Project" instead of "Operation". You're worse than my last English professor.

What I said at the end of my post was, Saddam has already showed his penchant for senseless violence, and since you assert his reasons for this were the "endless search for more power", what is to say what lengths he would go to attmept this again? You want to tell me he had NO chance of ever attempting any power play on the Middle East again...I'm pretty sure nobody EXPECTED the Holocaust when Hitler came into power.

And about Hitler, I misspoke when I posted that he was in power for WWI and I understand he wasn't...brain fart. You claim WWII was a reactionary effort, and that is essentially correct. Japan was the country to attack Pearl Harbor, and we attacked Germany and Italy as well. Why, you ask? Well, as my history teacher, sir, you understand it was because 1) those countries supported Japan, and 2) they were attacking our allies/interests overseas. We COULD have fought simply against Japan and saved a bunch of lives over in Germany, right? While this isn't WWII, the comparisons wouldn't be THAT far off, and war in this day and age is entirely different from back in the 40s.

I'm "disconnected from reality" and you will "poop in my pillowcase". One potential reason for why there's no exact count on dead Iraqis is because such a count would be impossible. There is no real organized "military" over there anymore and it seems like everybody's armed. Chaos rules and the only people who know for sure are the ones who are there.

If anybody could actually calculate an accurate figure, they would not be labeled Bush-haters or, as you say, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", neither term one which I favor using, especially the latter. But when the seemingly random numbers generated by largely left-wing groups are used as political fodder, as though there were a certain number of deaths "allowed" in this action, you may understand how it seems.

And just so we know where each other stands, I am in fact a supporter of President Bush overall and am not basing my vote merely on this war, so don't keep calling me a right-wing hawk. The sad thing is that opinons are like assholes, everybody's got one and they usually stink. And since you decided to respond to my post by insulting my intelligence, making childish comments, and attempting to distort my last point of my post, it has become apparent to me that conversation with you would be impossible. Let's just agree to disagree.

NOW I remember why I left the Politics forum for a while...I can't wait till this election is over...

nothumb

10-29-2004, 03:21 AM

Hi Edge,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm glad you took my comments to heart. I'm not sure you quite finished reading my post, though.

I'm glad you think I did a nice job replying to the whole thread, since I devoted the first two paragraphs of my post to a general summation of my opinions on arguments from both sides. I hope that wasn't sarcasm I detected - my detector is currently broken so I'm relying on my (admittedly feeble) intellect at this point.

I was hoping to discuss history and politics, not semantics, so I'm sorry you veered off into English class. Did I evoke a painful memory for you? Let me tell you, the reason I brought up this "Project" Desert Storm you speak of, and this second war that Hitler was involved in, is that your argument was based largely on your interpretation of history. It just seems pretty hard to make a historical comparison when you can't recall history accurately. I really try not to be a fact Nazi or a grammar Nazi, unless those facts are really central to your whole argument. About Nazis.

Now, your paragraph about how WWII was similar to Project Iraqi Freedom (/images/graemlins/smirk.gif) didn't make a lot of sense to me, I have to confess. Are you saying that we could have gone to war with Japan, but not her allies? Because the Japanese were part of an "Axis" that included Italy and Germany. So declaring war on Japan was sort of equivalent to declaring war on all of them. Oh - Iraq was part of an "Axis," too! My bad!

In all seriousness, the best I can tell from this part of your post is that the USA sent troops to attack nations that had not directly and materially attacked us in both cases. This is a pretty weak connection that applies to a number of other conflicts as well, including Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, etc. In fact, WWII was less a war of choice than most any other war of the 20th century. So, again, I really think you are off the mark here.

[ QUOTE ]
If anybody could actually calculate an accurate figure, they would not be labeled Bush-haters or, as you say, "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", neither term one which I favor using, especially the latter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad, I think that's a pretty funny phrase. Actually, funny story, some guy was trying to get me to sign up to 'help defeat George W. Bush' while I was trying to eat a burrito on a bench in town. This guy has bothered me before, so I was ready.

OBNOXIOUS LIBERAL: Hi, would you like to help defeat George Bush in November?
ME: I'm sorry, I'd rather eat this burrito.
OBNOXIOUS LIBERAL: Well, this will only take a minute...
ME: You know, I really can't help you, but there is a new cheese shop down the street from here. [actually, there really is!] Maybe if you go down there like this [raising hands above head] you will meet some kindred spirits.

Anyway, back to our engaging discussion, my point in that remark was not that these statisticians themselves are not being unfairly attacked due to accuracy, but rather that bringing up the number of deaths in Iraq - whether giving a specific number or merely alluding to their high volume in general - is ample cause for being attacked and, in some cases, labeled unpatriotic.

[ QUOTE ]
And just so we know where each other stands, I am in fact a supporter of President Bush overall and am not basing my vote merely on this war, so don't keep calling me a right-wing hawk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I may have insinuated that you're an idiot and been completely condescending (which may be the reason you think I'm a liberal) but I never called you a right-wing hawk. I was trying to be civilized. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
sad thing is that opinons are like assholes, everybody's got one and they usually stink.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but at least some of them are informed by a clear understanding of history.

[ QUOTE ]
NOW I remember why I left the Politics forum for a while...I can't wait till this election is over...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, just to let you know where I stand, I will still hate the President (whoever he is) come January, and I will still make fun of you for making posts that completely misrepresent historical events.

NT

Chris Alger

10-29-2004, 03:30 AM

"I'm not trying to downplay the death's [sic] in Iraq."

Of course your are. You're comparing victims of deliberate mass violence to voluntary risk takers and those that die natural deaths. There couldn't be any other point.

Chris Alger

10-29-2004, 03:41 AM

Or any of the other 100 or so U.S. cities defenseless against terror. This is the sort of post that the pro-terror sites use to prove that Americans have too many insane genocidal maniacs among them to justify pity or mercy. It's a mirror image of what this clown and tens of millions of other Americans imagine about the Islamic and Arab societies, the real reason we can get away with what we've done to Iraq.

Edge34

10-29-2004, 04:25 AM

NoThumb:

That's really odd - I admit making a mistake and you continue to be an obnoxious prick. Right-wing, Left-wing, or neutral, that's what you are...what got up your ass? I'll leave it at that as far as my opinion of you on this board.

The comparison I made between World War Two, you almost nailed, surprisingly enough, but you then twisted. Quick quiz: True or false - Japan was the only country to directly attack us before our involvement in WWII. True, as you certainly know. True or false - Iraq did not directly attack us, but was almost 100% sure to support terrorist organizations, not unlike the one that attacked us on 9/11/01. Little cloudier, I'm sure, but yes, that one is also True. So what I'm saying is if declaring war on Japan AND her allies in the battle of WWII was justified (which I believe all agree on), wouldn't it logically follow that declaring war on terrorist organizations and those who support/harbor them (including Iraq, among others) would also be at least justifiable, if not globally unanimous? You're right about the fact that the US sending troops to countries that had not directly attacked us connects with situations in Vietnam, Korea, Kosovo, etc., but this is a unique situation, in a new age of war.

If you've actually read this far and comprehended what I'm saying, instead of just planning out how to call me a moron and foolishly pick apart my wording, I hope this has found a way to lodge itself in your mind and begin to make a little sense.

Go ahead, continue to make fun of me all you want and be a condescending jerkoff in general. I will still wonder why people like you feel the need to hide behind computer screens and act like you're superior to those who make a simple mistake, and even admit it. You must be an absolute joy to have an actual conversation with if this is the way you treat anybody who makes a small mistake.

If you'll hate the President, whoever he is, why don't you just leave? I'm sure you'd be much happier elsewhere where you can REALLY act superior to people...maybe even in person!

-Edge

nicky g

10-29-2004, 04:54 AM

"He had millions of Kurds brutally murdered for no reason other than whatever his twisted mind could come up with."

Yah just keep making crap up. Saddam did not kill millions of Kurds. The highest estimates are about 180,000 Kurds. He did not, as wacki posted, kill one million Iraqis, most serious estimates are 200,000-300,000. Iraqi and Iranian casualties of the Iran-Iraq war bring this up to around 600,000 to 800,000. However laying all of those at the door of Saddam is absurd: Iran has its share of blame, as do those who encouraged Iraq to attack , paid for it, occasionally participated in the war on the Iraqi side, and passed vital intelligence to him on Iranian troop movements etc, and ignored his use of chemical weapons: that is to say Kuwait, Saudi Arabi, the United States and the United Kingdom. Without the massive funding they gave him, arming both sides and repeatedly saving Iraq's neck to allow that war to carry on it wouldn't have lasted for even half as long as it did.

As for other estimates being 10,000 to 30,000, those were largely based on press reports of violent deaths, many of which wouldn’t have been reported. This report shows the effects of the war much more comprehensively than that by comparing the pre- and post-war death rates. Let's not forget that the pre-war death rates were not exactly rosy given the devestating effect of the sanctions and parlous state of Iraqi infrastructure. Of course the figures can't be trusted 100%, as they can't in any statistical sampling exercise; it;s possible they are over or indeed understated. But as independent experts in the report state, it uses a valid and tested method for counting casualties and is the most scientific method so far.

Even if we say Saddam can be solely and directly blamed for 1mn deaths, which is absurd, this war has managed to kill around one tenth of the people he did in 1/16 of the time he was in power; not to mention that prior to the war he was no longer capable of killing anywhere near as many people as he had in the past, with his army massively weakened and the main victims of his major attacks, the Kurds, no longer under his control. Not to mention that the report clearly shows the violent death rate has rocketed since the invasion. If we take a more realistic estimate such as 500,000, we get 500,000 in 24 years vs 100,000 in 1.5 years; and again, the great majority of those 500,000 died in circumstances that were no longer possible in the years before the war and that would not be possible now if the war had not happened. Do the maths. In terms death rates this war his clearly been massively -EV for the Iraqis so far. Hopefully it won't stay that way. But 1.5 years later, the promises that things will eventually get so much better as to make it all worth while are looking increasingly stretched.

nicky g

10-29-2004, 05:48 AM

Let's take this further. The common justification for the war now that there was no WMD threat has become the liberation of Iraqis from a tyrant - that is, saving and improving people's lives. It looks like the costs of the are are going to run into hundreds of billions of dollars. Think of all the lives you could save or improve with that money. For a fraction of it, you could give millions of people access to clean water. You could make a massive effort against AIDS ( a group of Economists reccommended spending money on AIDS prevention and treatment as the best way to sive lives globally). Or take security: for a small fraction of it, you could help Pakistan build a proper free education system so families don't send their kids of to free Wahabbi schools because it's the only way to get them an education. The possibilities are endless. And the best bit? You don't wind up even temporarily sending violent death rates sky-rocketing or killing 100,000 people (or indeed, any people). The war was never intended as a humanitarian effort, but evenn measured as one it is an absurdly ineffecient and miserably counterproductive one.

tolbiny

10-29-2004, 08:02 AM

no i didn't, do you have a link to a summary, or clips?
thanks

elwoodblues

10-29-2004, 10:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not trying to downplay the death's in Iraq

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a racist, but all nigg....

[ QUOTE ]
unless you belong to that 13% which is very unlikely-- You shouldn't be posting unfortunate news to make the president look bad

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't evaluate the negative consequences of going to war, because that might make the president look bad? If the rationale for the war was at least in part flawed and the consequences are worse, should we just sit idly by? Staying the course is more important than making the right decision when new information comes to light.

MMMMMM

10-29-2004, 11:05 AM

I don't completely agree with that, Nicky. In my opinion, freeing 25 million people from under the heel of a brutal murderous tyrant is more important than fighting AIDS. Freedom, and the freedom of successive generations, is an intangible quality that is very, very valuable.

The world is already straining under the usage of 6 billion people, so I don't think it should automatically be presumed that something which would help increase the world's overall population would necessarily be a good thing.

Wars often come about due in large part to competition for resources and land, so if the overall global population growth is not curbed, I fear the future can expect to see more wars, and bigger wars, than would otherwise take place. Additionally, some of the most impoverished areas in the world are also the most overpopulated. Is saving or prolonging the lives of those afflicted with AIDS in those regions really going to do anything for the overall quality of life there? What is the real point of saving people from AIDS just so they can starve to death instead?

Sorry if this brief exploration of ideas which may lead to analysis sounds cold or hard-hearted, but the facts and results don't care about things like that. I think these things and many more need to be taken into account and an attempt at analysis made.

nothumb

10-29-2004, 02:18 PM

Ok Edge,

You made your point quite clearly that time, well done. I still don't agree. When you say that the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda was 'cloudier... but still 100% true' I plain old have to disagree. Some very tenuous links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda have been unearthed during this whole mess. However, most reports have concluded that he did not materially aid our enemies in any way with their attacks on US soil, nor did he have the means or a strong interest to provide them with nuclear or biological weapons of a serious caliber. The highest ranking Al-Qaeda operative in Iraq, al-Zarqawi, was actually situated in a region of the country over which Saddam had no control (remember, we took over most of it?). This fact was known to Bush & co pre-war but they didn't bring it up, probably for fear of hurting their so-called 'case' for war.

If you're going to attack nations that have aided terrorists, or have shown an interest in doing so, or have failed to prevent terrorists from gaining shelter and comfort within their borders, we can get to Iraq right after we're done with Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Palestine, etc etc.

We attacked Iraq because it was vulnerable, because people knew the name and could be convinced, and because we had beef with Saddam. And I guarantee we were hoping to have an outside chance to stabilize control of the second-greatest oil reserves on Earth - a benefit that, for whatever reason, Bush doesn't want credit for. Of course, he's far from achieving it at this point.

[ QUOTE ]
If you'll hate the President, whoever he is, why don't you just leave?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, for a number of reasons, not least among them that I like living where I live right now. Does the fact that I don't like either of the two (completely awful) presidential candidates in this particular election mean I should just go? If that is the case you are inviting more members of this board than you may realize to go swim to Cuba.

I'm not one of those hypocrites who threatens to leave the country every time something bad happens to his political party. I'm young and not very wealthy, but I'd love to travel in the future and wouldn't rule out spending a large portion of my life in another country. But I'm perfectly happy where I am for now, thanks.

NT

MMMMMM

10-29-2004, 02:32 PM

" And I guarantee we were hoping to have an outside chance to stabilize control of the second-greatest oil reserves on Earth - a benefit that, for whatever reason, Bush doesn't want credit for. Of course, he's far from achieving it at this point. "

Just a tangential point but this is a very good reason in itself. Without oil, the world economy would collapse and countless lives would be lost. Oil isn't just for SUVs and luxuries, it is for hospitals, research centers, farms, and just about everything else that gives us in the 21st century our standard of living.

Now of course if we hadn't gone to Iraq the oil would almost surely still be flowing now. But those who cry "No Blood For Oil" clearly haven't considered the consequences of lack of or severe disruption in the world's oil supply. Also it should be pointed out that in no way is ensuring the free flow of oil to world markets wrong or merely self-centered; even the country selling the oil needs to do so for the immense revenue it generates. The only ones who oppose the free flow of oil to world markets are the terrorists, bin-Laden, the Saddamite insurgents, and perhaps some misguided Greens.