• 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 .
Sorry for the Iraqis, but the world is better off without that insane paranoid dictator.

Easy to say from where you sit, but hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, millions displaced, and the those suffering from the ravages of war, they may not be as enthusiastic as you. Especially as life isn't really much better.
 
Sorry for the Iraqis, but the world is better off without that insane paranoid dictator.

At the cost of a cool $1.7 trillion.... a real value. Surely you are not one the gripes about the debt or deficits, as your statement here takes away all credibility on such an issue.
 
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

I appreciate your taking the time to post all of that material. So what if Iran likes the fact that Saddam is gone. He was a troublemaker and a thorn in EVERYBODY'S sides. I still fail to see just HOW Iraq is ever going to be very valuable to Iran though. Unless Iran comes and steals their oil, which WE and others would never allow to happen.
 
At the cost of a cool $1.7 trillion.... a real value. Surely you are not one the gripes about the debt or deficits, as your statement here takes away all credibility on such an issue.

How so? I really don't think you know what you're talking about.
 
I appreciate your taking the time to post all of that material. So what if Iran likes the fact that Saddam is gone. He was a troublemaker and a thorn in EVERYBODY'S sides. I still fail to see just HOW Iraq is ever going to be very valuable to Iran though. Unless Iran comes and steals their oil, which WE and others would never allow to happen.

All they need is Iraq's support. Eventually they could become a client state. But even if they don't, it just makes things easier for them to have Iraq as a friend. It strengthens Iran.
 
How so? I really don't think you know what you're talking about.

I think he gets that number for here:

(Reuters) - The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said.

Iraq war costs U.S. more than $2 trillion: study | Reuters
 
Easy to say from where you sit, but hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, millions displaced, and the those suffering from the ravages of war, they may not be as enthusiastic as you. Especially as life isn't really much better.

Who mentioned the term "enthusiastic?" What I said was I feel sorry for those Iraqis who might have suffered, but the world is still better off without an insane paranoid dictator, not to mention his two crazy sadistic sons.

I wonder what would have happened had we NOT taken Saddam and his sons out, and his two crazy sons took over Iraq? Have you given THAT scenario any thought?
 
Who mentioned the term "enthusiastic?" What I said was I feel sorry for those Iraqis who might have suffered, but the world is still better off without an insane paranoid dictator, not to mention his two crazy sadistic sons.

I wonder what would have happened had we NOT taken Saddam and his sons out, and his two crazy sons took over Iraq? Have you given THAT scenario any thought?


Yes, I have. Likely less would have died. We wouldn't have paid so much for little. And the movement that was building in Iran wouldn't have been slowed by our reckless act.
 
Yes, I have. Likely less would have died. We wouldn't have paid so much for little. And the movement that was building in Iran wouldn't have been slowed by our reckless act.

The idea to attack was not the problem, it was how it was carried out. Further, Bush was not overly concerned about Iran because Iran was on the list to be taken out.

We were wrong to use the strategies/tactics that we did, we were not wrong to attack in the first place. The idea to take out sponsors of terror was good, the plan they used was the problem.
 
If the plan was to take out the sponsors, he would have attacked his Saudi buddies.
 
If the plan was to take out the sponsors, he would have attacked his Saudi buddies.

Governments that sponsored terrorism, not individuals, although, he did try to get some of those through various channels. Do you have any evidence at all that the Saudi government sponsors terrorism?
 
How does it help Iran?


The Sunni leadership of Saddam was anathema to Iran, and Iraq had a large military that had been used to attack Iran. Now Iraq is Shiite leadership, the same as Iran, so they are in overall agreement. Iraq's military is no longer a perceived threat under current circumstances and they are friendly. Pretty much allies.
 
Yes, I have. Likely less would have died. We wouldn't have paid so much for little. And the movement that was building in Iran wouldn't have been slowed by our reckless act.

Yeah, because everything in Iraq was working out fine. The country had been totally destroyed by Saddam, all social capital wiped out. Rape had been institutionalized. Further mass starvation or another genocide was imminent. But hey, I'm sure everything would have been just peachy keen.

:rolleyes
 
Oh and hey, just because his sons raped hundreds of high-school children, pulled the girls out of class, taking them to the rape palaces, passing them along to their cronies and then killing them...

Well, that's no reason to believe that they would not have been progressive individuals ushering in a new era of Iraqi enlightenment.



Believing that things would have been ok in Iraq is totally disconnected from reality, even if we ignore the possibility of Iran invading and annexing Iraq.
 
Last edited:
The idea to attack was not the problem, it was how it was carried out. Further, Bush was not overly concerned about Iran because Iran was on the list to be taken out.

We were wrong to use the strategies/tactics that we did, we were not wrong to attack in the first place. The idea to take out sponsors of terror was good, the plan they used was the problem.

Actual invasion on a pretext was the largest error, being immoral, reckless, and imperialistic.
 
Yeah, because everything in Iraq was working out fine. The country had been totally destroyed by Saddam, all social capital wiped out. Rape had been institutionalized. Further mass starvation or another genocide was imminent. But hey, I'm sure everything would have been just peachy keen.

:rolleyes

Of which we were also party to. You mistake having something is the only way there would be no cause to be reckless, immoral, and imperialistic. No one is arguing Iraq was perfect.
 
The Sunni leadership of Saddam was anathema to Iran, and Iraq had a large military that had been used to attack Iran. Now Iraq is Shiite leadership, the same as Iran, so they are in overall agreement. Iraq's military is no longer a perceived threat under current circumstances and they are friendly. Pretty much allies.

Isn't that what we want? For all of those countries to get along and stop fighting?
 
Isn't that what we want? For all of those countries to get along and stop fighting?


NO! War is good business and business is good" and if you're in the Military Industrial Complex you want permanent war because it generates permanent profits. Did you forget this is Capitalism/Corporatism that runs this Country. It's about profits. You show me one country where we have invaded and human rights have prospered. We peddle dictatorships, plutocracies, oligarchies, and despots as our stock in trade. Keeerisssst, look at Haiti, we kicked out a Priest leading the Country because he was using Cuban doctors in Haiti.
 
Close to a million or right around one million.
 
NO! War is good business and business is good" and if you're in the Military Industrial Complex you want permanent war because it generates permanent profits. Did you forget this is Capitalism/Corporatism that runs this Country. It's about profits. You show me one country where we have invaded and human rights have prospered. We peddle dictatorships, plutocracies, oligarchies, and despots as our stock in trade. Keeerisssst, look at Haiti, we kicked out a Priest leading the Country because he was using Cuban doctors in Haiti.

Get a grip on yourself. :roll: If you hate this country so much, why do you live here?

Please post a link to your claims about the Haitian dictator.
 
Get a grip on yourself. :roll: If you hate this country so much, why do you live here?

Please post a link to your claims about the Haitian dictator.

Jean-Bertrand Aristide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"2004 destabilization and coup[edit]

For more details on this topic, see 2004 Haitian coup d'état.

Despite enjoying widespread support by the majority of Haitians, the Washington Post informed their readers that regime change was looming on 21 November 2003: "Aristide has pushed with mixed success a populist agenda of higher minimum wages, school construction, literacy programs, higher taxes on the rich and other policies that have angered an opposition movement run largely by a mulatto elite that has traditionally controlled Haiti's economy."[56]

After Aristide took office in February 2001, the US played a leading role in forcing hundreds of millions of dollars in international aid to be cut off, while bolstering a minority opposition led by Haiti's tiny elite. In the three years leading up to the coup, the nation's already moribund economy further deteriorated and the government ground to a halt as the opposition refused to participate in elections. The US ignored pleas from the Aristide government for an international peacekeeping force as a motley band of armed thugs led by a suspected drug trafficker and fugitive death squad leaders overran more than half the country. US marines in Haiti made no effort to disarm these rebels. US policy toward Haiti appeared to be a war of attrition, driven by animosity towards Aristide, a former priest who rankled Washington with his anti-capitalist sermons and his adherence to liberation theology, a Catholic doctrine that advocates spiritual and economic help for the poor and oppressed.[57]

On 8 February 2001, the federally funded International Republican Institute's (IRI) senior program officer for Haiti, Stanley Lucas, appeared on the Haitian station Radio Tropicale to suggest three strategies for vanquishing Haiti's president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. First, Lucas proposed forcing Aristide to accept early elections and be voted out; second, he could be charged with corruption and arrested; and finally, Lucas raised dealing with Aristide the way the Congolese people had dealt with President Laurent Kabila the month before. "You did see what happened to Kabila?" Lucas asked his audience. Kabila had been assassinated. Lucas and IRI, a nonprofit political group backed by powerful Republicans close to the Bush administration, did more than talk. For six years leading up to the coup, the I.R.I. conducted a $3 million party-building program in Haiti, training Aristide's political opponents, uniting them into a single bloc and, according to a former U.S. ambassador there, encouraging them to reject internationally sanctioned power-sharing agreements in order to heighten Haiti's political crisis.[58]

"[Aristide] was espousing change in Haiti, fundamental populist change," said Robert Maguire, a Haiti scholar who has criticized American policy as insufficiently concerned with Haiti's poor. "Right away, he was viewed as a threat by very powerful forces in Haiti." President Aristide promised not only to give voice to the poor in the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, but also to raise the minimum wage and force businesses to pay taxes. He rallied supporters with heated attacks on the United States, a tacit supporter of past dictatorships and a major influence in Haitian affairs since the Marines occupied the country from 1915 to 1934. "He wasn't going to be beholden to the United States, and so he was going to be trouble," said Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut. "We had interests and ties with some of the very strong financial interests in the country, and Aristide was threatening them." Those interests, mostly in the textile and electronic assembly businesses, sold many of their products cheap to the United States. The anti-Aristide message had currency around Washington. Mr. Einaudi, the veteran diplomat, recalled attending the I.R.I.'s 2001 fund-raising dinner and being surrounded by a half-dozen Haitian businessmen sounding a common cry: "We were foolish to think that we could do anything with Aristide. That it was impossible to negotiate with him. That it was necessary to get rid of him." A year later, the I.R.I. created a stir when it issued a press release praising the attempted overthrow of Hugo Chávez, the elected president of Venezuela and a confrontational populist, who, like Mr. Aristide, was seen as a threat by some in Washington.[59]

In February 2004, the assassination of gang leader Amiot Metayer sparked a violent rebellion that culminated in Aristide's removal from office. Amiot's brother, Buteur Metayer, blamed Aristide for the assassination, and used this as an argument given in order to form the National Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Haiti.[60] Joined by other groups[61] the rebels quickly took control of the North, and eventually laid siege to, and then invaded, the capital. Under disputed circumstances, Aristide was flown out of the country by the U.S. on 28 February 2004.[62]

Earlier in February, Aristide's lawyer had claimed that the U.S. was arming anti-Aristide troops.[63] Aristide later stated that France and the US had a role in what he termed "a kidnapping" that took him from Haiti to South Africa via the Central African Republic.[64] However, authorities said his temporary asylum there had been negotiated by the United States, France and Gabon.[65] On 1 March 2004, US Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), along with Aristide family friend Randall Robinson, reported Aristide had told them that he had been forced to resign and had been abducted from the country by the United States and that he had been held hostage by an armed military guard.[66]

After Aristide was removed from Haiti, looters raided his villa.[67] Most barricades were lifted the day after Aristide left as the shooting had stopped; order was maintained by Haitian police, along with armed rebels and local vigilante groups.[68] Almost immediately after the Aristides were transported from Haiti, Prime Minister of Jamaica, P.J. Patterson, dispatched a Member of Parliament, Sharon Hay-Webster, to the Central African Republic. The leadership of that country agreed that Aristide and his family could go to Jamaica. The Aristides were in the island for several months until the Jamaican government gained acceptance by the Republic of South Africa for the family to relocate there.

Aristide has accused the U.S. of deposing him.[5][69] According to Rep. Maxine Waters D-California, Mildred Aristide called her at her home at 6:30 am to inform her "the coup d'etat has been completed", and Jean-Bertrand Aristide said the US Embassy in Haiti's chief of staff came to his house to say he would be killed "and a lot of Haitians would be killed" if he refused to resign immediately and said he "has to go now."[5] Rep. Charles Rangel, D-New York expressed similar words, saying Aristide had told him he was "disappointed that the international community had let him down" and "that he resigned under pressure" – "As a matter of fact, he was very apprehensive for his life. They made it clear that he had to go now or he would be killed."[5] When asked for his response to these statements Colin Powell said that "it might have been better for members of Congress who have heard these stories to ask us about the stories before going public with them so we don't make a difficult situation that much more difficult" and he alleged that Aristide "did not democratically govern or govern well".[5] CARICOM, an organization of Caribbean countries that included Haiti, called for a United Nations investigation into Aristide's removal, but were reportedly pressured by the US and France to drop their request. Some observers suggest the rebellion and removal of Aristide were covertly orchestrated by these two countries.[70][71] Jamaican Prime Minister P. J. Patterson released a statement saying "we are bound to question whether his resignation was truly voluntary, as it comes after the capture of sections of Haiti by armed insurgents and the failure of the international community to provide the requisite support. The removal of President Aristide in these circumstances sets a dangerous precedent for democratically elected governments anywhere and everywhere, as it promotes the removal of duly elected persons from office by the power of rebel forces."[5] In a 2006 interview, Aristide said the US went back on their word regarding compromises he made with them over privatization of enterprises to ensure that part of the profits would go to the Haitian people and then "relied on a disinformation campaign" to discredit him.[72]"


Former President Aristide on His Party
 
How so? I really don't think you know what you're talking about.

My point is that someone that believes spending $1.7T removing a two bit dictator is justified, is a spendthrift and best not be talking about our runaway deficits and debt. Now I do not know if you are a person that believes that the Iraq war was the right thing to do AND believe deficits and/or debt are one of our biggest problems; but they are inconsistent positions.
 
Last edited:
My point is that someone that believes spending $1.7T removing a two bit dictator is justified, is a spendthrift and best not be talking about our runaway deficits and debt.

Well, thankfully you don't dictate what other people can be concerned about or talk about.
 
Well, thankfully you don't dictate what other people can be concerned about or talk about.

I am certainly not dictating what one can and can not say. However, if you tell us that removing Saddam was a good thing to do, you have no credibility telling us that deficits and/or the debt are major concerns..... because you just advocated running up the debt on this (mis)adventure in Iraq... so you lost the right to complain about result. You do things and you live with the consequences. You can't go on a spending spree and then complain about your credit bill. Either the spending spree was worth it and you pay the bill; or you regret the spending spree.

Believing the Iraq war was a good thing is inconsistent with the argument that our deficits are a very bad thing. That isn't telling you what you can and can not say; its just telling you what two beliefs are contradictory and make you look foolish if you believe both.... Who am I to stand in the way of someone that wishes to believe the Iraq war was the right thing to do and is outraged by the debt? Who am I to stand in the way of the foolish?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom