quote:Yes it is. You said that the lives lost would be greater than the lives saved. You can't quantify the numbers (because you have no proof), but that's what you said. That is your logistical and logical flaw.
Well, you tell me then: How would you like me to calculate the number of deaths that will occur over the next 10 years as a result of this war (keeping in mind I have no time machine)?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You could try by understanding recent and past history, Tres. Events change, but human nature rarely does. I can't believe you made such a ridiculous attempt to disregard history to begin with.
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, you definitely want more than that. After all, I understand history and based my response on that understanding, yet you were not satisfied with my response. Instead, you wanted me to give numbers, and no mere understanding of history allows one to pull future statistics out of the air.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Death toll by Hussein to date: over a million Death toll by the Iraq War removing Hussein: 20,000 tops so far
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Using statistics from the past to predict the future when so many variables are changing is not a very effective tool. But if you want....
Death toll in Vietnam: estimated 58,000 Americans and 3 million Vietnamese
Approx. number killed in a single terrorist attack on Sept. 11: 4,000
# of successes the U.S. has had in attempting to bring democratic, humanitarian regimes to power in the Muslim nations of the Middle East and vicinity: 0
This should give us some idea of what the sort of guerilla war we've started could cause, what the sort of terrorist attacks we are provoking could cost, and what the chances of bringing in a new regime that will not kill its own people are. Obviously, these statistics may not be perfectly applicable to the future situation, since some factors may have changed, but neither are your statistics.
Jews killed in Nazi concetration camps: over 6 million (close to 7, if not more) Non-jews killed in Nazi concentration camps: a few million
Chinese killed by Japanese mass-murder campaigns: upwards of 6 or 7 million (or more)
Soldiers killed because of WWII: under or just over a million
Really, Tres, we can go back and forth on this, you using the more dubious wars, while I choose the less dubious ones (in terms of motivation). My point is that you can either stop making up numbers, or choose applicable numbers to choose from. I chose the current numbers with Hussein to gauge the probable actions of Hussein. You made up numbers that fit conveniently with your own opinion. You drew yours form thin air, Tres, while I based Hussein's behavior on what his behavior has been consistently for years (even in years before the sanctions after the Gulf War). Get over it, man. You're pulling numbers from thin air, attributing behaviors and motives that are not consistent with current and past behaviors to support your thin-air numbers.
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem is, Leto, there are no applicable numbers. The situation in Iraq now is NEW - there is no precedent to look at other than past guerilla wars and past instances in which we tried to replace old regimes with new, humanitarian regimes. On the other hand, you also don't have any numbers showing there will be less than 1 million killed in the next 10 years in Iraq, right?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but I have proof that a source of 1 million deaths and counting up until the Iraq War is now no longer in power. That's a whole hell of a lot more to go on than you do.
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard that as many as 500,000 Iraqi deaths since Gulf I can be attributed to UN economic sanctions. Even if this is grossly over-inflated, as I suspect it might be, 100,000 is possible. There are more ways to kill Iraqis than with bullets, bombs and poison gas.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Morbo, most of those deaths are attributed to Hussein starving his people while keeping his own quarters posh.
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, John. That does not negate all UN responsibility for their (the rest of the world) actions in maintaining the sanctions for over a decade, however.
[edit: and similarly to the idiotic 40+ year US economic blockade of Cuba. It does nothing but hurt Cuban citizens at this late date]
quote: Soldiers killed because of WWII: under or just over a million
There were 12 million Russian soldiers killed in WWII. Are you saying that there were only 1 million soldiers killed in all of WWII?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course not—there's always plenty of blame to go around. I was pointing out that the victimization went well beyond just putting a gun to people and pulling a trigger with Hussein. The whole nation was turning into a concentration camp slowly, while Hussein himself lived like a rock star. While people may argue about what kind of continued presence there should be over there, don't forget that the vast majority of people over there are glad Hussein is gone. Many of them are eating better than they had before the war.
I am not justifying the methods, but I'm pointing out that for the most people in Iraq—which is arguably the most like the Western world in terms of technology and cosmopolitan attitudes—the fall of the Ba`ath party has been a good thing. (the only thing most Iraqis don't like is the US occupation, which the fringe groups take advantage of regularly)
Yes, I was using US troops as an example. Still if we rose the troop count to 15 million, it's still less than the deaths by camps and murder campaigns by the Nazis and Japanese.
[ November 01, 2003, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: Leto II ]
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yes, I was using US troops as an example. Still if we rose the troop count to 15 million, it's still less than the deaths by camps and murder campaigns by the Nazis and Japanese.
I understand your point. Civillian deaths in WWII were substantially higher than military deaths. Russia lost 17 million civillians. I would just nitpick it a little further and say that there were approx. 400,000 Americans killed in WWII.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That little counter on the webpage showing the "cost of war" attempts to say that every dollar sent to Iraq is stolen from those that want better education and medical care. However, I think that it fails to realize that many of the dollars spent in Iraq are spent on education and medical care, albeit for Iraqi citizens. Not only are we helping to provide these services, but we are gradually helping to create the social stability that is required for these services to flourish. It's a long, long term investment, but no less important for its longevity.
Posts: 224 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taberah, it's arguable that these tax dollars are poor recompense for the unbelievable instability the US has just inflicted on the Middle East, not generators of stability unto themselves.
To be honest, I'm a bit amazed at the lack of outrage. Republicans have been bemoaning and criticizing (and often, lying about) Democratic attempts to provide health care and education for all Americans for decades -- but they're willing to create the highest debt in history simply to further enrich the rich through tax dollars?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo: First of all, both parties created that “highest debt in history” when they voted to increase it. I've already posted links to the vote record several times and don't want to post it again. So blaming it just on republicans is a bit much.
Second, the Middle East has never been a stable place in the first place.
Third, don't get into the class warfare crap. Rich people own things and poor people work at them so whenever you buy something the rich get richer. Name me a time or place when that wasn't the case.
Posts: 7083 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that it fails to realize that many of the dollars spent in Iraq are spent on education and medical care, albeit for Iraqi citizens.
True to a point, but only a small percentage. I would say less than 10% of the $87 Billion administration appropriation request will go towards Iraqi education or health care, probably less than 5%. Most of the money will go to the military or large US corporations.
quote: Most of the money will go to the military or large US corporations.
Of course it will. That little additive about the money going to education and health care is just a nice little public relations byte for the members in the public who are against this whole thing. And to maintain the whole "Operation Iraqi Freedom" guise.
I think when President Bush decided to go to war with Iraq, the freedom of its people was either at the bottom, or not even on the list.
Posts: 463 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not have a source that is unbiased. I don't have telepathy, either.
That statement was just my opinion, and nothing more. It was based on a collection of observations of the administration's policy on dealing with the public--ie-The PATRIOT act, really isn't that patriotic if you read it, it is a waiver of the bill of rights. But the name conjures an idea of patriotism, which was a hot subject when the act was instated and still is today. It seems the Bush administration has been playing the patriot ticket since 9-11, and playing it hard. In less than a year, he made the most hated man in America from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein, and even had 40% of the country thinking that Hussein had something to do with 9-11!
Of course, now he is astounded people think that. personally, I am too, because Osama's crowd and Saddam are like night and day. I think we got into this war to use Iraq's oil and get Saddam out of the way more quickly, and so Pres. Jr. could get revenge for his father. I just read an op/ed article called Blueprint for a Mess . This war was poorly, poorly planned, and now we and the Iraqi people are paying for it in many ways. I don't disagree that Saddam needed to be taken out, but it was all gone about the wrong way. If you have a source to prove me my opinion is wrong--I would say please post it.
But I am very stubborn when it comes to my opinions of this war and the Bush adminstration, and it would have to be really, really good for me to change my mind.
posted
Actually virtually all the money goes to US corporations. Then those horrible corporations due awful things like build schools, roads, and hospitals for those ugly "brown people".
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's see Hussein and Sons kill Iraqis and Kurds from when he takes power to the moment he's disposed. So suddenly right when the US was going to invade the murder was going to stop? Of course, Saddam was specifically targeting Kurds and Shiites because of their ethnicity and religion but who cares about them, they're brown people after all therefore it can't be genocide.
Morbo, how did UN economic sanctions kill Iraqis? By starving them? So I guess when Hussein spends all of his money to build palaces for himself he has nothing to do with it. Come on, sanctions just affected the amount of diamonds in Saddam Hussein's toilet, not the people's food supply. The same goes for Cuba. Try to remember we're dealing with dictators here, not very benevolent people.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the sanctions had no effect and didn't punish Saddam, then what was their point? Sanctions and embargoes have enormous effects, in Cuba and 1991-2002 Iraq.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
