• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

HOW MANY IRAQIS DIED?


  • Total voters
    45
  • Poll closed .
When did Germany attack us?

Their ally did, Japan. And Germany declared war on us. Not only that, but genocide was ongoing. in Iraq that was not the case. HRW wrote up a find article noted that while genocide was going on in Iraq, we did nothing. Instead we waited until years later to add to their woes, not stop it. In a real way, we added injury to injury.

Bottom line, your comparison is way off.
 
Their ally did, Japan. And Germany declared war on us. Not only that, but genocide was ongoing. in Iraq that was not the case. HRW wrote up a find article noted that while genocide was going on in Iraq, we did nothing. Instead we waited until years later to add to their woes, not stop it. In a real way, we added injury to injury.

Bottom line, your comparison is way off.

FYI, Post #195 is addressed to you. I just forgot to quote you.
 
Read a list of Sadaam's crimes sometime, it's very unpleasant.

Also, Iraq's ally did attack us:



Their ally did, Japan. And Germany declared war on us. Not only that, but genocide was ongoing. in Iraq that was not the case. HRW wrote up a find article noted that while genocide was going on in Iraq, we did nothing. Instead we waited until years later to add to their woes, not stop it. In a real way, we added injury to injury.

Bottom line, your comparison is way off.
 
Where is your evidence that Iraq is friendly with Iran. Those two countries have a hatred for one another that has been going on for probably centuries.

With the United States formally ending its military operations in Iraq, many are beginning to turn their eye to Iran’s deep influence in the country. And, in light of Tehran’s growing tensions with the West over its nuclear program, Tehran’s maneuvers in Iraq have tremendous implications.
Tehran has arguably been among the biggest beneficiaries, albeit inadvertently, of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Iran Gets Close to Iraq | New Leaders Forum | The Diplomat

Iraq-Iran Foreign Relations | IranTracker

Iraq-Iran Ties Grow Stronger As Iraq Rises From The Ashes


Just the first few from a search. You can find a lot more if you look.
 
I'm not sure what you refer to as a "friendly" Iraq. In that they are in no position to attack, perhaps. Iran's leadership is fundamentally fanatical Shia (Shi'ite) and only is "friendly" with other Shia leadership. It would never be "friends" with the Sunni population or any leadership that is Sunni. Iran has a much longer track record supporting violence and terrorism against Sunni's than it does against the west. It supplied arms and people for the Shia insurgents in Iraq. It also funded Shi'ite uprisings in other Sunni led countries.

See links above.
 
With the United States formally ending its military operations in Iraq, many are beginning to turn their eye to Iran’s deep influence in the country. And, in light of Tehran’s growing tensions with the West over its nuclear program, Tehran’s maneuvers in Iraq have tremendous implications.
Tehran has arguably been among the biggest beneficiaries, albeit inadvertently, of the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Iran Gets Close to Iraq | New Leaders Forum | The Diplomat

Iraq-Iran Foreign Relations | IranTracker

Iraq-Iran Ties Grow Stronger As Iraq Rises From The Ashes


Just the first few from a search. You can find a lot more if you look.

Well, you'll have to read my post #195.
 
This is too Boo Radley:

Another thing. Are you inferring because Saddam isn't alive, making his ridiculous threats, and Ahmadinejad responding in kind that they are "friendly" now? :confused:

And what's wrong if Iran and Iraq were friendly. Isn't that what we want? For them to all just get along in that region?

other than it helps Iran, not much. But there was a reason we supported Saddam and others. Not a good reason that justified the support, but a reason why their being friendly is a problem.
 
other than it helps Iran, not much. But there was a reason we supported Saddam and others. Not a good reason that justified the support, but a reason why their being friendly is a problem.

How does it help Iran?
 
Read a list of Sadaam's crimes sometime, it's very unpleasant.

Also, Iraq's ally did attack us:



No, that's fiction. But don't stop on one false comparison. look at them all.
 
How does it help Iran?

It helps the economically and with their agenda. They are not tied up with a neighbor so close attacking them. They are building support in the area. All we can do is hope they take it too far.
 
It helps the economically and with their agenda. They are not tied up with a neighbor so close attacking them. They are building support in the area. All we can do is hope they take it too far.

Sorry, but I don't really believe they are going to get anything that amounts to much from Iraq. I think there are other neighbors that should be more worrisome than Iraq.
 
Not even a close comparison. Not only were we attacked, but Germany declared war on us first. The differences matter.

So if we hadn't been attacked by Japan or if Germany hadn't declared war on us, we should have left both nations alone to continue their genocidal policies against the nations they conquered?
 
Sorry, but I don't really believe they are going to get anything that amounts to much from Iraq. I think there are other neighbors that should be more worrisome than Iraq.

really, from one of the links I gave you:

"These are the wonderful consequences of our intervention -- and the brilliance of it really is mindboggling," said Chas Freeman, a Middle East scholar and critic of the neoconservatives. "The extent to which Iraq has become an active collaborator with Iran ... is really very striking."

(snip)

Rather than help the U.S. in these endeavors, however, Iraq is doing quite the opposite. Iraq has been critical of the U.S. sanctions against Iran, and some fear it will help its neighbor avoid the penalty's sting by ferrying goods across their shared border.

Another top Obama administration goal in the Middle East is to push Bashar al-Assad's oppressive regime out of Syria. "For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside," President Barack Obama said last August.

But again, Iraq is working at cross-purposes to the U.S., decrying efforts to oust Assad and letting Iran use its airspace to ship weapons to Assad's government.

In fact, some Middle East scholars predict the rise of a Shiite Iran-Iraq-Syria axis, which could challenge Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Persian Gulf states for control of the region.
 
So if we hadn't been attacked by Japan or if Germany hadn't declared war on us, we should have left both nations alone to continue their genocidal policies against the nations they conquered?

Read the rest. Genocide was active in Germany (though we didn't use that as a reason in WWII), but not in Iraq. Again, the comparison is merely a poor, poor comparison.
 
really, from one of the links I gave you:

"These are the wonderful consequences of our intervention -- and the brilliance of it really is mindboggling," said Chas Freeman, a Middle East scholar and critic of the neoconservatives. "The extent to which Iraq has become an active collaborator with Iran ... is really very striking."

(snip)

Rather than help the U.S. in these endeavors, however, Iraq is doing quite the opposite. Iraq has been critical of the U.S. sanctions against Iran, and some fear it will help its neighbor avoid the penalty's sting by ferrying goods across their shared border.

Another top Obama administration goal in the Middle East is to push Bashar al-Assad's oppressive regime out of Syria. "For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside," President Barack Obama said last August.

But again, Iraq is working at cross-purposes to the U.S., decrying efforts to oust Assad and letting Iran use its airspace to ship weapons to Assad's government.

In fact, some Middle East scholars predict the rise of a Shiite Iran-Iraq-Syria axis, which could challenge Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Persian Gulf states for control of the region.

And again, I don't think Iraq is in any position to be any kind of a threat or a help to any other nation.
 
Read the rest. Genocide was active in Germany (though we didn't use that as a reason in WWII), but not in Iraq. Again, the comparison is merely a poor, poor comparison.

What about the Kurds?
 
What about the Kurds?

He means currently in progress. While the genocide of the Kurds was ~1989 and the Marsh Arabs ~91, the starving of children by selling food was just prior to the invasion. But there's really no point to some arguments. People can be entirely convinced that there is no good to do in this world.
 
And again, I don't think Iraq is in any position to be any kind of a threat or a help to any other nation.

How big doesn't matter. The point is we changed the dynamics in Iran's favor. It was important to Iran for them to help us go in.
 
What about the Kurds?

It was going on the time. That had long ended. In fact, we waited until it had long ended, settled down, and then and only then brought them war. Don't you see how many Iraqis would not be all that thankful for that?
 
How big doesn't matter. The point is we changed the dynamics in Iran's favor. It was important to Iran for them to help us go in.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Also, I have yet to see any evidence that Iraq is "helping" Iran in any way.
 
It was going on the time. That had long ended. In fact, we waited until it had long ended, settled down, and then and only then brought them war. Don't you see how many Iraqis would not be all that thankful for that?

Sorry for the Iraqis, but the world is better off without that insane paranoid dictator.
 
Sorry, but I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

Also, I have yet to see any evidence that Iraq is "helping" Iran in any way.

Well I gave you some evidence.

More:

Iran is the biggest beneficiary of the American misadventure in Iraq. The U.S. ousted Tehran's sworn enemy, Saddam Hussein, from power. Then Washington helped install a Shiite government for the first time in Iraq's modern history. As U.S. troops became mired in fighting an insurgency and containing a civil war, Iran extended its influence over all of Iraq's Shiite factions.

So, Who Won the War in Iraq? Iran - Council on Foreign Relations

Iran’s influence in Iraq is both overt and subtle. It's evident in Iranian products on Iraqi shelves, in strong ties of faith, and in Tehran’s open lines to all of Iraq’s political power players (including, said the U.S. official, to Sunni-backed and secular Shiite Ayad Allawi, who’s often seen as the bulwark against Iranian influence in Iraq). "In short, Iran infiltrates the top echelons of the Iraqi authority. Iran is in government departments and among the average Iraqis," political analyst Liqa Makki said on a recent Al Jazeera talk show. Other analysts see the so-called "Great Iraqi Oil Rush," playing for an estimated 100 billion barrels in untapped fields, as especially attractive to Iran as the squeeze of sanctions slows its own oil production and revenues.

Does Iran Win The Iraq War? ·Al Qaeda: The Franchise· Saudi Women Hit The Workplace - ABC News



As for your first question. Iran helped us invade Iraq. Not only did they use Chalibi for a second time to set us up (the first time was when we backed out of helping the Kurds because we saw his betrayal then), but the gave us support to do so.

The Islamic republic proved more successful than the shah. It conducted a sophisticated disinformation campaign prior to the 2003 Iraq war to convince the United States that invading Iraq would be militarily easy and that Iraqis would welcome the Americans with open arms. This fed the existing U.S. desire to invade Iraq, becoming one factor among many that made the invasion seem doable. In a second phase, the Iranians helped many factions in Iraq resist the Americans, turning the occupation -- and plans for reconstructing Iraq according to American blueprints -- into a nightmare. In a third and final phase, Iran used its influence in Iraq to divide and paralyze the country after the Americans withdrew.

As a result of this maneuvering, Iran achieved two goals. First, the Americans disposed of Iran's archenemy, Saddam Hussein, turning Iraq into a strategic cripple. Second, Iran helped force the United States out of Iraq, creating a vacuum in Iraq and undermining U.S. credibility in the region -- and sapping any U.S. appetite for further military adventures in the Middle East. I want to emphasize that all of this was not an Iranian plot: Many other factors contributed to this sequence of events. At the same time, Iranian maneuvering was no minor factor in the process; Iran skillfully exploited events that it helped shape.

Read more: Iran's Strategy | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook
 
Iraqi's were killing Iraqi's before America went to Iraq.
Iraqi's were killing Iraqi's while America was in Iraq.
Iraqi's are killing Iraqi's since America left Iraq.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Interesting rationalization.
 
Back
Top Bottom