• 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 .
A lot fewer people would have died, had we not invaded Germany during The Second World War, too. Was FDR a war criminal? Oh...wait...he was a Libbo...of course he wasn't.

Did you missed the part where I showed those two are not comparable?
 
Uhhh...why would I want to do that? You seem very defensive.



Yeah. When I said that about insurgents in Iraq being responsible for the people they killed, you just said it was the responsibility of Americans. This would be an opportunity to correct that.



Yeah...no, I don't think that has any basis in logic whatsoever.



So if the US accidentally went to war....?



Ahh. Your subjective judgment is proper. One of those guys, I see.



Right, so inconsistency.

Do you think there's any chance that you're quicker to ascribe responsibility for all things negative in Iraq on the US because you disagreed with the war? Any chance at all?

I mean, as we have this conversation, you're having a very difficult time separating those two concepts (responsibility as an idea and the Iraq war) . I wouldn't be surprised at all if in your next post you say you can't separate them because they're part of the same issue. But we were talking about people/organizations being responsible for the acts they do in a general sense, and had gotten away from the specifics. The topic of people/organizations being responsible for the acts they do is something that can be discussed without mentioning Iraq, the US, or even the idea of war at all, you know.

You seem to have extremely strong feelings for this, and I'm gonna have to suggest that maybe your feelings tint your analysis here. Much like Iraqis I've talked to that blamed everything on Saddam; they hated Saddam, so they found ways to justify in their minds that anything bad ultimately came back on him, and was his responsibility. The similarity is striking.

No invasion, no insurgents. Do you understand the concept of shared responsibility?

But, the fact is, no no invasion, no insurgents.

I disagree with the war because of the negative things I mention. If we had not invaded on a pretext, I would have been opposed. If we hadn't been reckless, there would be nothing for me to object over. If we had told the truth, I couldn't criticize the honest. Do you understand this?

BTW, pretending ignorance to what I said doesn't make you accurate about consistency.
 
No one's crying. Yet another poor tactic.
A "poor tactic" is tying John McCain to George Bush. An even poorer tactic is saying Sarah Palin lacked experience, when Hussein's resume was just as sparse.

The threat asked a question. I answered it. Others responded. Nothing more.
Lots and lots more. Liberals live for this kind of thing, especially since your guy is such a crappy president.

And while I note things I disagree with ths president concerning the two wars, Iraq will forever be Bush's, even when a republican finally regains office. There's no way around that.
And Benghazi will forever be Hussein's. The only difference is, we won't be hammering you guys with it four years from now.
 
A "poor tactic" is tying John McCain to George Bush. An even poorer tactic is saying Sarah Palin lacked experience, when Hussein's resume was just as sparse.

I didn't bring these two up. But if your asking me about n them, MCCain ran a poor campaign. Selecting Palin was perhaps his largest mistake, not because she was inexperienced, but because she came across poorly, bordering on ignorant.
 
Lots and lots more. Liberals live for this kind of thing, especially since your guy is such a crappy president.

I have idea what your saying here.



And Benghazi will forever be Hussein's. The only difference is, we won't be hammering you guys with it four years from now.

If you could you would. Remember how long Clinton was blamed. But you're going to actually have to she something real with Benghazi. Bush's act was real.
 
I didn't bring these two up.
The Left did, and you're part of that group.

But if your asking me about n them, MCCain ran a poor campaign. Selecting Palin was perhaps his largest mistake, not because she was inexperienced, but because she came across poorly, bordering on ignorant.
That's what the liberal media fed you.
 
The Left did, and you're part of that group.

That's what the liberal media fed you.

No, I'm an individual. Treat me as such.

And no, that's what happened. You're just trying to excuse it away.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061935839 said:
How many died in LBJ's (Democrat) Vietnam?

More than 1 million Vietnamese and more than 58,000 Americans.

No wonder he didn't run for reelection. Washed his hands, sealed his fate.

While he inherited the war, Nixon continued it and twice the number of servicemen died while he was President as under Johnson. No wonder he resigned.
 
Touting the 1 million figure, years after it has been debunked, is willful ignorance.

And touting the 1000 - 5000 isn't ?

Paul
 
No invasion, no insurgents. Do you understand the concept of shared responsibility?

But, the fact is, no no invasion, no insurgents.

I disagree with the war because of the negative things I mention. If we had not invaded on a pretext, I would have been opposed. If we hadn't been reckless, there would be nothing for me to object over. If we had told the truth, I couldn't criticize the honest. Do you understand this?

BTW, pretending ignorance to what I said doesn't make you accurate about consistency.

Did you even read the list given for why we invaded Iraq? It was very large and extensive and it was passed through a democratic congress here in the good ole' USA so why don't people stop skirting the responsibility for the Iraqi invasion (if that's what we want to call it since what the **** is his name brought it upon himself). There were MULTIPLE reasons given for why we went into Iraq, the US as a whole gave its support for it. You cannot get around that. It is edged in stone. So why don't we as Americans finally take responsibility for something we (for the most part) were all behind? We supported it. There weren't too many people here who didn't.
 
No invasion, no insurgents. Do you understand the concept of shared responsibility?

But, the fact is, no no invasion, no insurgents.

I disagree with the war because of the negative things I mention. If we had not invaded on a pretext, I would have been opposed. If we hadn't been reckless, there would be nothing for me to object over. If we had told the truth, I couldn't criticize the honest. Do you understand this?

BTW, pretending ignorance to what I said doesn't make you accurate about consistency.

Look, you need to understand that the concept of the responsibility of a person or group for their actions exists independent of the war in Iraq or even, shockingly, your thoughts about it. Responsibility exists whether or not you're sympathetic to motivations and actions or not. Stop marrying these two ideas together.

Secondly, I think everyone on the planet is aware of shared responsibility. That's such a no-brainer that I wouldn't have even though quasi-intelligent people would bother to discuss it. Who holds the primary responsibility for a random car bombing in Ramadi that kills 8 eight people? The US or the people that planned the attack?
 
While he inherited the war, Nixon continued it and twice the number of servicemen died while he was President as under Johnson. No wonder he resigned.


I'm not inclined to see the wars as LBJ's war or Reagan's war but realistically as "War is good business, and let's get some going." I see it as the Corporate Military/Industrial Complex's war or for example, Iraq, as the Well-Oiled Corporate Military/Industrial Complex's war. Now we acknowledge the very capitalist push to profit from war and, of course, if you are in the armaments or military supply line, then war is good business and let's gin up more of it. That's not some subliminal force, it's the real world of profit and loss. Syria, War is good business, and business is lookin' good." Eh? By the same measures, Republicans seem to be owned by more War corporations than Democrats, but both are bought and sold. We don't have any business being involved in Syria, just as we had no real business being involved in Iraq, excepting the OIL that is.
 
I'm not inclined to see the wars as LBJ's war or Reagan's war but realistically as "War is good business, and let's get some going." I see it as the Corporate Military/Industrial Complex's war or for example, Iraq, as the Well-Oiled Corporate Military/Industrial Complex's war. Now we acknowledge the very capitalist push to profit from war and, of course, if you are in the armaments or military supply line, then war is good business and let's gin up more of it. That's not some subliminal force, it's the real world of profit and loss. Syria, War is good business, and business is lookin' good." Eh? By the same measures, Republicans seem to be owned by more War corporations than Democrats, but both are bought and sold. We don't have any business being involved in Syria, just as we had no real business being involved in Iraq, excepting the OIL that is.

Why don't they tell us about the deaths anymore like they used to when Bush was the president?
 
Why don't they tell us about the deaths anymore like they used to when Bush was the president?


The Bush administration started the policy of flying dead US soldiers into Dover Air Force Base in the middle of the night so no one would notice. The Bush Admin was the creator of "We don't do body counts" by the Military. The Bush admin worked non stop to prevent any real body counts and spread ambiguity instead. That is why there is so much dispute because they were real masters of misinformation. Sorta like Obama on NSA.
 
The Bush administration started the policy of flying dead US soldiers into Dover Air Force Base in the middle of the night so no one would notice. The Bush Admin was the creator of "We don't do body counts" by the Military. The Bush admin worked non stop to prevent any real body counts and spread ambiguity instead. That is why there is so much dispute because they were real masters of misinformation. Sorta like Obama on NSA.

I asked a specific question. Why aren't they giving us the body count anymore? None of what you stated above addresses this problem. Why are they hiding the deaths now? Are the deaths of our soldiers any LESS important because of who the president happens to be?
 
Did you missed the part where I showed those two are not comparable?
I must have. They are comparable, because war is war. You can't throw aside the historical facts that don't agree with your argument. THAT is what they call "revisionist history".
 
A picture of a coin with .01 - .02 Cents scrap value. Clad copper. Supposed to be worth a quarter dollar. Imagery sells. Is that the message. Nothing is what it seems. Fiat money now referred to as a medium of exchange because it has no intrinsic value. It's all sort of like grabbing a handful of smoke. You might be able to smell it, but there ain't nothin' there.

So, have you figured out the meaning of the quarter yet? No? Ok, I'll return to listening to Travis Tritt.
 
I asked a specific question. Why aren't they giving us the body count anymore? None of what you stated above addresses this problem. Why are they hiding the deaths now? Are the deaths of our soldiers any LESS important because of who the president happens to be?

What are you talking about? Not only is there no "hiding" of the death count, there is no ban on photos of the dead returning home either. You must be reading right wing garbage.
 
What are you talking about? Not only is there no "hiding" of the death count, there is no ban on photos of the dead returning home either. You must be reading right wing garbage.

I watch the same news channels I've always watched. The news has changed. I haven't. They RARELY talk about the war anymore when before it was almost a nightly story, or at least weekly updates.

If you don't see that, YOU must be blind.
 
I think you do. You just don't like reading it.


Only because I think he's responsible.

It's just a matter of time...

No, I really don't understand what you were trying to say. As fir the rest, I'll listen when there is substance to your hyperbole.
 
All liberals deserve to be treated equally. When I speak to one of you, I speak to the entire collective. ;)

I'm telling it like it is, and you know it.

If you can't see differences, then you are blind, most likely by prejudice or too much koolaid.
 
Did you even read the list given for why we invaded Iraq? It was very large and extensive and it was passed through a democratic congress here in the good ole' USA so why don't people stop skirting the responsibility for the Iraqi invasion (if that's what we want to call it since what the **** is his name brought it upon himself). There were MULTIPLE reasons given for why we went into Iraq, the US as a whole gave its support for it. You cannot get around that. It is edged in stone. So why don't we as Americans finally take responsibility for something we (for the most part) were all behind? We supported it. There weren't too many people here who didn't.

I've read it many, many times. Neither individually nor in total does he list hold up as valid justification. And us having the fever is no excuse for leaders acting recklessly, immorally, nor dishonestly. But I do agree, as a people, we should recognize our error and learn so as no not be so foolish ver again.
 
Back
Top Bottom