View Poll Results: HOW MANY IRAQIS DIED?

Voters
51. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1,000-5,000

    2 3.92%
  • 5,000-50,000

    2 3.92%
  • 50,000-100,000

    12 23.53%
  • 100,000-1,000,000+

    35 68.63%
Page 53 of 60 FirstFirst ... 3435152535455 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 530 of 599

Thread: How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War?[W:496]

  1. #521
    Sage
    Geoist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,916

    Re: How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War?[W:496]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I think being better off with out Saddam is more of a feel good statement than anything else. Saddam's are far too common in the world to think just killing them off will solve the problem. Most often they are merely replaced by some else, as bad or worse.
    But as long as they stick with the petrodollar they can be as evil as they want to be.
    "Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice
    http://www.wealthandwant.com/

  2. #522
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War?[W:496]

    Quote Originally Posted by Geoist View Post
    But as long as they stick with the petrodollar they can be as evil as they want to be.
    We don't oppose evil. Not if it benefits us. And some who favored rather war will admit that.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #523
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War?[W:496]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    It's a good thing to be sure, but even you use the word almost. And yes, we spread it at gun point. We invaded a country, and told them to vote (even though many thought they were voting for us to leave). You can't change the facts.

    And yes, I remember all those things. But they are off point. The history here is the ME.
    I think you remember select things. I'm not trying to change any facts. I also don't pick and choose my facts. Iraq's population was of those in the ME that twice before voiced for democracy, but was denied it after WWI and again after WWII. To insist that we told them to vote against their will after removing our dictator denies the majority of Iraq (Shia and Kurds) and caters to those who boycotted (Sunni).

    Iraq is in the ME. In fact it is in the very heart of the ME. It is not some separate island on the side for which Muslims throughout the region can't see. The events in Iraq pulled Sunni radicals and extremist from all over the region just to defy the idea of a Shia led Baghdad. It was tribal. It is still tribal. It is Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, etc. It's all about the same thing. Democracy would work as fine and quickly in the MENA as it works everywhere else in the world if those populations were of the same mind and not separated by manufactured and religiously inspired bigotry. Re-draw the borders. Worked for Europe.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #524
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War?[W:496]

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I think you remember select things. I'm not trying to change any facts. I also don't pick and choose my facts. Iraq's population was of those in the ME that twice before voiced for democracy, but was denied it after WWI and again after WWII. To insist that we told them to vote against their will after removing our dictator denies the majority of Iraq (Shia and Kurds) and caters to those who boycotted (Sunni).

    Iraq is in the ME. In fact it is in the very heart of the ME. It is not some separate island on the side for which Muslims throughout the region can't see. The events in Iraq pulled Sunni radicals and extremist from all over the region just to defy the idea of a Shia led Baghdad. It was tribal. It is still tribal. It is Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, etc. It's all about the same thing. Democracy would work as fine and quickly in the MENA as it works everywhere else in the world if those populations were of the same mind and not separated by manufactured and religiously inspired bigotry. Re-draw the borders. Worked for Europe.
    Redrawing the boarders there has been all that successful in the past as I recall.

    But by gun point, that phrases means you invaded and largely decided for them they would be a democracy. In that sense, we did make then vote. As a people, they have to decide their fate. We shouldn't try to do it for them. There's been too much of that already. We've been imperialistic before, and with mixed results. We might be better off not playing ruler of the world.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #525
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War?[W:496]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I don't think you know more. Your view is just more myopic. There being more than one training grown doesn't change what happened in Iraq. And the region was moving toward democracy before we invaded. In fact, there's a fair argument that we slowed that process down. You speak of history, but don't seem to recall that Israel has used force for a long, long time, with really very little to show for it. This problem can't be won this way, and history tells us this.
    No...the region was not moving towards democracy. The region was stagnate and stale in its status quo while blaming America for their own culture's oppressions. There is no evidence of a movement towards democracy and simply stating it doesn't make it so. Low level democratic processes in Saudi Arabia began after Saddam Hussein was toppled and after their first elections due to population pressures in Saudi Arabia watching Iraqis vote. The pressure that came out of Iraq for the region's dictators was enormous. They began to crack down on their populations or they began to ease oppressions. However, after Iraqis voted in 2010 without international security and with success, a man in Tunisia set himself on fire and sparked the Arab Spring. Do you honestly think that Iraqi voters had nothing to do with this pressure?

    By the way, Israel has Israel to show for it. Force is why Israel still exists. Theirs is a defense force. You seem to be convoluting the issues as if Israel has been trying to roll across the region. Put it into perspective.

    History tells us many things. Unfortunately for the Middle East, their history has been written largely by Arab colonists and Europeans. Until their borders are re-drawn blood and slaughter will always be the theme whether they slaughter each other or send their children abroad to knock down New York buildings. So for those who try to use history to support minding our own business I offer up Al-Queda and hundreds of others that seek someone to blame. For those who use history to support thundering through the regions with weapons I offer up Iraq or Syria and the tribal freedom it releases. For those who actually understand this history, I offer up the lessons of Europe's World Wars, Yugoslavia and Sudan. Tribe matters and until we stop acting as if lines on a map are forever set in concrete we will continue to ignore history while using it to draw wrong conclusions.

    Do you know why the tribes in Europe get along now? It's because their borders define them and going to war with another is an international act of war. The Middle East's tribal conflicts gets defined as something civil rather than what it is. Re-draw their lines and see how much less pressure these populations have.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  6. #526
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War?[W:496]

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    No...the region was not moving towards democracy. The region was stagnate and stale in its status quo while blaming America for their own culture's oppressions. There is no evidence of a movement towards democracy and simply stating it doesn't make it so. Low level democratic processes in Saudi Arabia began after Saddam Hussein was toppled and after their first elections due to population pressures in Saudi Arabia watching Iraqis vote. The pressure that came out of Iraq for the region's dictators was enormous. They began to crack down on their populations or they began to ease oppressions. However, after Iraqis voted in 2010 without international security and with success, a man in Tunisia set himself on fire and sparked the Arab Spring. Do you honestly think that Iraqi voters had nothing to do with this pressure?

    By the way, Israel has Israel to show for it. Force is why Israel still exists. Theirs is a defense force. You seem to be convoluting the issues as if Israel has been trying to roll across the region. Put it into perspective.

    History tells us many things. Unfortunately for the Middle East, their history has been written largely by Arab colonists and Europeans. Until their borders are re-drawn blood and slaughter will always be the theme whether they slaughter each other or send their children abroad to knock down New York buildings. So for those who try to use history to support minding our own business I offer up Al-Queda and hundreds of others that seek someone to blame. For those who use history to support thundering through the regions with weapons I offer up Iraq or Syria and the tribal freedom it releases. For those who actually understand this history, I offer up the lessons of Europe's World Wars, Yugoslavia and Sudan. Tribe matters and until we stop acting as if lines on a map are forever set in concrete we will continue to ignore history while using it to draw wrong conclusions.

    Do you know why the tribes in Europe get along now? It's because their borders define them and going to war with another is an international act of war. The Middle East's tribal conflicts gets defined as something civil rather than what it is. Re-draw their lines and see how much less pressure these populations have.
    Actually there were moves toward democracy in the region prior to invasion. Much was written on that at the time.

    And, you are correct that prior imperialism efforts made a mess out of boarders. The thing that surprises me is that some thing all we need is more imperialism. This is for them to work out and not us. They don't need anymore imperialism.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #527
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War?[W:496]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Redrawing the boarders there has been all that successful in the past as I recall.
    The Middle East as you see it today is a direct result of the post-World War I division of the Middle East by Britain and France. Russia was involved but lost their bid by quitting the war before Allied victory. Before World War I, the Ottoman Empire managed to hold their empire together because all the tribes throughout largely recognized the officiating of the Caliphate in Istanbul. The Ottoman Empire disappeared into history as a member of the Central Powers and left Britain and France to play with the Arabic world. Europeans created these Frankenstein's Monster states by slashing lines across maps from offices in Paris and London. They gave no regard to tribe nor to local demands for self determination. Only Turkey escaped this largely because of the threat of Russia to Britain and later because of General Ataturk who removed the Sultan in 1922 and installed democracy (at gun point), which was a long time dream of the Young Turks. This officially ended 1400 years of Caliphate rule for the Muslim people. The rest of the Middle East got wrecked, which was against Wilson's Fourteen Points at Versailles. Decades later after World II Arabs would try to install democracies through the military coups and all they got were dictator.

    The biggest issue in the ME for Muslims was the Levant. Secret deals and covert handshakes during the War by the British, French and the Russians saw the introduction of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Belfour Declaration. All three sought support against the Central Powers whether they were enlisting Arab Muslims against Muslim Turks or enlisting Jews to do the same. All three contradicted each other and facilitated the clash between Zionist dreams of a national identity (future Israel) and the Palestinian Arab dreams of self-determination and independence. (Incidentally, we got involved in Vietnam post WWII largely over a colony issue...Truman disagreed with Roosevelt who spoke of self-determination in the third world. Truman supported the French via extortion until one day later another President starts a Draft in what would become our war).

    Drawing these borders in the MENA have been horribly disastrous on many levels and the 9/11 attacks 90 years later was the ultimate response of a civilization that can no longer deal with the pressures of existing next to people they hate at gun point. So when you use the tag line "democracy at gun point" it insults the majority of Muslims in the region who have watched decade after decade the rest of the world grow while they lingered under the gun. Over 120 democracies created in the world since 1900 and none in the Arab MENA until 2003? And now an Arab Spring throughout the region calling for "democracy," not "caliphate?" Mixed in will be the radicals and the recently inspired radicals who can't handle the pressures of a changing world that "Allah" has been described as hating ever since Iran's Khomeini started preaching about "Foreign Devils."

    The funny thing about this is that Muslim intellectuals only need this bit of the history to cry victim. They will ignore the fact that Ottomans ruled the Lavent for near 1,000 years and never considered a Palestine. They will ignore the fact that the original Arabs of the Rashidun exploded Islam out into the region, thereby colonizing the many tribes and made Jewish/Christian holy sites Islamic holy sites for which the Levant would hold meaning to them. But that goes back too far. Best we stick with the wicked West who for the first time in Levant history offered an international establishment of Palestine in 1947.


    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    We've been imperialistic before, and with mixed results. We might be better off not playing ruler of the world.
    I would disagree only because the world has seen twice what it will do without an America in isolation. Refusing to be involved and controlling the global mood is why we lost hundreds of thousands of lives. We were better off when we didn't have to make decisions to venture out and deal with what others started. I would agree that we need to do a better job.

    Anyway, the answer is to re-draw the lines with the instructions of the Muslims. Anything else will merely sustain the mess as people argue that this, that, and everything else is wrong. The solution is quite simple actually if only our diplomats had the intellect and the nerve to suggest it. Rid the region of dictators and create healthy nations based on tribal sovereignty. Again...works everywhere else. Of course, Europe had to host two World Wars, but they got there. Perhaps we can get the MENA to the other side before nuclear involvements and future World Wars.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #528
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War?[W:496]

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Actually there were moves toward democracy in the region prior to invasion. Much was written on that at the time.
    Who? Where? The only reason anything may have been written at the time was to give war protestors intellectual credibility as they grabbed onto anything. Nothing was significant if it existed at all. There was no push for democracy in the region whatsoever. The closest thing to democracy was Iran, which is not the Sunni Arab mess of topic. I don't think protestors recognize the significance of this. When Iraqis voted, it marked the first time in Arab history. Soon after Saudi Arabia authorized low level elections and soon after that authorized women to drive, which was a first in history. The low level elections are insignificant and you won't find many men that will let their women drive, but the House of Saud response was to appease their own populations who were watching Iraq. This idea that democracy in the MENA was well on its way before Iraq's invasion is false. Hussein, King Abdullah, Gaddafi, Ben Ali, Bashir, al-Assad, etc. existed under the status quo of silenced populations who only knew the extremist as the way to voice opposition. The very moment our Washington leaders watched the 9/11 attacks they should have known that this region must change and that chasing down a handful of terrorists for a few weeks wasn't going to do it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And, you are correct that prior imperialism efforts made a mess out of boarders. The thing that surprises me is that some thing all we need is more imperialism. This is for them to work out and not us. They don't need anymore imperialism.
    Well they are welcome to make their own decisions. If only there was a system of government that would allow that.

    We already practice less imperialism. Ours is a different kind of imperialism now from the Cold War. We have actually transitioned from the Cold War support of dictators to actually conducting ourselves with more responsibility. We just have bad leaders who spend more time criticizing each other in the hopes of getting elected only to wander around in the dark once they get there. Supporting Syrian rebels will only empower a tribe other than they Alawate and they will practice oppression, slaughter and mayhem in what they consider their country while all others are outsiders. We have this ridiculous obsession to call these fleeing tribes refugees. Refugees of what? A house in a homeland that all tribes compete for? The truth is that these people have no homeland. They are like Jews without an Israel.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  9. #529
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War?[W:496]

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    The Middle East as you see it today is a direct result of the post-World War I division of the Middle East by Britain and France. Russia was involved but lost their bid by quitting the war before Allied victory. Before World War I, the Ottoman Empire managed to hold their empire together because all the tribes throughout largely recognized the officiating of the Caliphate in Istanbul. The Ottoman Empire disappeared into history as a member of the Central Powers and left Britain and France to play with the Arabic world. Europeans created these Frankenstein's Monster states by slashing lines across maps from offices in Paris and London. They gave no regard to tribe nor to local demands for self determination. Only Turkey escaped this largely because of the threat of Russia to Britain and later because of General Ataturk who removed the Sultan in 1922 and installed democracy (at gun point), which was a long time dream of the Young Turks. This officially ended 1400 years of Caliphate rule for the Muslim people. The rest of the Middle East got wrecked, which was against Wilson's Fourteen Points at Versailles. Decades later after World II Arabs would try to install democracies through the military coups and all they got were dictator.

    The biggest issue in the ME for Muslims was the Levant. Secret deals and covert handshakes during the War by the British, French and the Russians saw the introduction of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Belfour Declaration. All three sought support against the Central Powers whether they were enlisting Arab Muslims against Muslim Turks or enlisting Jews to do the same. All three contradicted each other and facilitated the clash between Zionist dreams of a national identity (future Israel) and the Palestinian Arab dreams of self-determination and independence. (Incidentally, we got involved in Vietnam post WWII largely over a colony issue...Truman disagreed with Roosevelt who spoke of self-determination in the third world. Truman supported the French via extortion until one day later another President starts a Draft in what would become our war).

    Drawing these borders in the MENA have been horribly disastrous on many levels and the 9/11 attacks 90 years later was the ultimate response of a civilization that can no longer deal with the pressures of existing next to people they hate at gun point. So when you use the tag line "democracy at gun point" it insults the majority of Muslims in the region who have watched decade after decade the rest of the world grow while they lingered under the gun. Over 120 democracies created in the world since 1900 and none in the Arab MENA until 2003? And now an Arab Spring throughout the region calling for "democracy," not "caliphate?" Mixed in will be the radicals and the recently inspired radicals who can't handle the pressures of a changing world that "Allah" has been described as hating ever since Iran's Khomeini started preaching about "Foreign Devils."

    The funny thing about this is that Muslim intellectuals only need this bit of the history to cry victim. They will ignore the fact that Ottomans ruled the Lavent for near 1,000 years and never considered a Palestine. They will ignore the fact that the original Arabs of the Rashidun exploded Islam out into the region, thereby colonizing the many tribes and made Jewish/Christian holy sites Islamic holy sites for which the Levant would hold meaning to them. But that goes back too far. Best we stick with the wicked West who for the first time in Levant history offered an international establishment of Palestine in 1947.




    I would disagree only because the world has seen twice what it will do without an America in isolation. Refusing to be involved and controlling the global mood is why we lost hundreds of thousands of lives. We were better off when we didn't have to make decisions to venture out and deal with what others started. I would agree that we need to do a better job.

    Anyway, the answer is to re-draw the lines with the instructions of the Muslims. Anything else will merely sustain the mess as people argue that this, that, and everything else is wrong. The solution is quite simple actually if only our diplomats had the intellect and the nerve to suggest it. Rid the region of dictators and create healthy nations based on tribal sovereignty. Again...works everywhere else. Of course, Europe had to host two World Wars, but they got there. Perhaps we can get the MENA to the other side before nuclear involvements and future World Wars.
    Ou do a nice job of laying it out. Nothing there is anything I didn't know, so most of it was not hat valuable for me. However, it is not a choice between isolation and imperialism. We can recognize their sovereign right to work out their own problems and be isolationistic.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #530
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War?[W:496]

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Who? Where? The only reason anything may have been written at the time was to give war protestors intellectual credibility as they grabbed onto anything. Nothing was significant if it existed at all. There was no push for democracy in the region whatsoever. The closest thing to democracy was Iran, which is not the Sunni Arab mess of topic. I don't think protestors recognize the significance of this. When Iraqis voted, it marked the first time in Arab history. Soon after Saudi Arabia authorized low level elections and soon after that authorized women to drive, which was a first in history. The low level elections are insignificant and you won't find many men that will let their women drive, but the House of Saud response was to appease their own populations who were watching Iraq. This idea that democracy in the MENA was well on its way before Iraq's invasion is false. Hussein, King Abdullah, Gaddafi, Ben Ali, Bashir, al-Assad, etc. existed under the status quo of silenced populations who only knew the extremist as the way to voice opposition. The very moment our Washington leaders watched the 9/11 attacks they should have known that this region must change and that chasing down a handful of terrorists for a few weeks wasn't going to do it.





    Well they are welcome to make their own decisions. If only there was a system of government that would allow that.

    We already practice less imperialism. Ours is a different kind of imperialism now from the Cold War. We have actually transitioned from the Cold War support of dictators to actually conducting ourselves with more responsibility. We just have bad leaders who spend more time criticizing each other in the hopes of getting elected only to wander around in the dark once they get there. Supporting Syrian rebels will only empower a tribe other than they Alawate and they will practice oppression, slaughter and mayhem in what they consider their country while all others are outsiders. We have this ridiculous obsession to call these fleeing tribes refugees. Refugees of what? A house in a homeland that all tribes compete for? The truth is that these people have no homeland. They are like Jews without an Israel.
    If you want me to look up the old articles again I will. Let me know.

    But even to have democracy is their choice, something they fight for. Not something given.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 53 of 60 FirstFirst ... 3435152535455 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •