• 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 .
The region has not been rid of, but merely traded one for another. The result will be the same in the end. You can't give this. People must want it. Do it themselves. It is one thing to help those fighting and another thing to have the hubris t think you can give it to them.

This is nonsense and always has been. You protestors and supporters all belong on the moon. Thee type slogans ignore the facts of the region. It is painfully and violently clear that they want and have always wanted a form of democracy. The problem, which you see everyday in the headlines, is that their tribes are unnaturally smashed together. The idea of democracy has to be figured out while they are coming to terms of living together under a system that doesn't use force and oppression to make them behave. The ultimate fix is to re-draw the borders. It is this that can't be forced. It is this that they have to do on their own. When it came to Saddam Hussein, it was the West that saw his rise. It was the West that maintained his rise under Cold War system of "stability." It was the West that supported his throne after the Gulf War rather than deal with the inevitable. And so it was the West that was responsible for finally getting rid of him after his population proved unable to free themselves.
 
He was not saint, a terrible and brutal tyrant to be sure, but we killed more, much more by invading. Sorry.

You made a claim. The claim was FALSE. I have made this obvious. The fact is, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands (children, nonetheless) just prior to the invasion.

I will now correct another gross belch of ignorance on your part: that the coalition killed more than Saddam. FALSE. Saddam killed 500k Iraqis by invading Iran, 200k Kurds by genocide, 50k Marsh Arabs by genocide and 400k children by starvation. These events alone average to 50k per year of his dictatorship. The US has not killed over 1m since the invasion and the US has not killed 50k per year. Compared to Saddam, the US has barely killed anyone.


You're welcome.
 
It's a Corporatocracy and "War is good business and business is good." That would be a $700 billion Military Offense budget in a World with no serious threats.

This goes back to Eisenhower...not Bush in 2003. Whining about a war almost fifty years later as if it created this is ignorant. Protest better. This is why guys like me will always be able to dismiss protestors. They simply don't really know what they are protesting and in the end they think their protests mattered.
 
He allowed the starvation to thumb his nose at the West.

He did not "allow" starvation. He sold food, from the food-for-oil program, sufficient to nourish 400k children. We have the evidence: the food he sold in other countries.

He intentionally, without the help of anyone, with purpose and intent, starved 400k children and used the proceeds to institutionalize rape, torture and slaughter.
 
Hardly. Civilians have still been killed during this time, just as they had before. Only now they got to kill even more. We pretended nothing. You can't beat Tarzan by fighting Jane.

And they are going to keep killing until they get to the other side. That's their course. You can forgive Europeans their quest to start World Wars over tribe and territory, but senseless slaughter in the Middle East demands that we keep with the dictators? Do you realize that after the World Wars, Europe's monarchies fell into history and democracies emerged? Some could argue that insisting that Muslims can only behave under dictators is bigotry and short sighted. Perhaps if they re-drew their borders like Europe did, the tribes would have less to slaughter about.

You are looking at this incredibly wrong. Look at it in historical terms and you won't really see the mess you think you are seeing. Every region on Earth has sorted itself out except the MENA. Only the MENA has been disallowed their path until 2003 when we removed "our" dictator and provided opportunity. This is their path.
 
He did not "allow" starvation. He sold food, from the food-for-oil program, sufficient to nourish 400k children. We have the evidence: the food he sold in other countries.

He intentionally, without the help of anyone, with purpose and intent, starved 400k children and used the proceeds to institutionalize rape, torture and slaughter.

Allow is just a word. He could have easily not allowed it and fed his people. It wasn't the point, nor does it matter either way. Iraq is and was never only about Iraq.
 
This is nonsense and always has been. You protestors and supporters all belong on the moon. Thee type slogans ignore the facts of the region. It is painfully and violently clear that they want and have always wanted a form of democracy. The problem, which you see everyday in the headlines, is that their tribes are unnaturally smashed together. The idea of democracy has to be figured out while they are coming to terms of living together under a system that doesn't use force and oppression to make them behave. The ultimate fix is to re-draw the borders. It is this that can't be forced. It is this that they have to do on their own. When it came to Saddam Hussein, it was the West that saw his rise. It was the West that maintained his rise under Cold War system of "stability." It was the West that supported his throne after the Gulf War rather than deal with the inevitable. And so it was the West that was responsible for finally getting rid of him after his population proved unable to free themselves.

I've ignored nothing. It is also hubris to assume you know more than others. I have listened to your arguments, I know the history, and have tried to explain why I disagree. Invasion did not help our efforts, but hurt them.
 
You made a claim. The claim was FALSE. I have made this obvious. The fact is, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands (children, nonetheless) just prior to the invasion.

I will now correct another gross belch of ignorance on your part: that the coalition killed more than Saddam. FALSE. Saddam killed 500k Iraqis by invading Iran, 200k Kurds by genocide, 50k Marsh Arabs by genocide and 400k children by starvation. These events alone average to 50k per year of his dictatorship. The US has not killed over 1m since the invasion and the US has not killed 50k per year. Compared to Saddam, the US has barely killed anyone.


You're welcome.

No, I made a proper and factual claim the deaths were not high prior to invasion. Not nearly high effort to justify invasion. Your trying to pretend some vp bad was worse than it was, which is sad considering the really was bad enough. But Saddam was not killing in numbers to justify invasion. He just wasn't.

And the rest you note was long before 2003. As I said, we watched that and did nothing. We waited until long after it was over to add to the total. I'm sure they were real grateful.
 
Allow is just a word. He could have easily not allowed it and fed his people. It wasn't the point, nor does it matter either way. Iraq is and was never only about Iraq.

Of course it was never only about Iraq. Who can ignore context?

But I don't like the implications of "allowed", as if it was not DIRECTLY his fault.
 
And they are going to keep killing until they get to the other side. That's their course. You can forgive Europeans their quest to start World Wars over tribe and territory, but senseless slaughter in the Middle East demands that we keep with the dictators? Do you realize that after the World Wars, Europe's monarchies fell into history and democracies emerged? Some could argue that insisting that Muslims can only behave under dictators is bigotry and short sighted. Perhaps if they re-drew their borders like Europe did, the tribes would have less to slaughter about.

You are looking at this incredibly wrong. Look at it in historical terms and you won't really see the mess you think you are seeing. Every region on Earth has sorted itself out except the MENA. Only the MENA has been disallowed their path until 2003 when we removed "our" dictator and provided opportunity. This is their path.

Democracy doesn't fix everything. Remember Palestinian elections? The problem isn't something we can fix by spreading democracy at gun point.
 
No, I made a proper and factual claim the deaths were not high prior to invasion. Not nearly high effort to justify invasion. Your trying to pretend some vp bad was worse than it was, which is sad considering the really was bad enough. But Saddam was not killing in numbers to justify invasion. He just wasn't.

And the rest you note was long before 2003. As I said, we watched that and did nothing. We waited until long after it was over to add to the total. I'm sure they were real grateful.


You were wrong about two things:

1. That Saddam had not slaughtered hundreds of thousands just prior to the invasion.
2. That the coalition killed more than Saddam.

Both statements are flat-out BS, according to undeniable evidence.


How can you be so determined in your ignorance?
 
I've ignored nothing. It is also hubris to assume you know more than others. I have listened to your arguments, I know the history, and have tried to explain why I disagree. Invasion did not help our efforts, but hurt them.

It would appear that I know far more than everyone here. Your explanations rely upon near sighted Intel that supports the maxim of either only predicting failure or merely reporting daily activity. It speaks nothing of historical understanding, nor does it take into account what is actually happening throughout the region. As these people move closer to democracy and liberal freedom, the religious nuts will gather their strengths, train more extremists, and react. This is natural to the course of all religions throughout the world. It has nothing to do with a single act in Iraq. It has everything to do with a people that are witnessing Islam's failure as an organizing tool (like European Catholicism before it) in the democratic/liberal modern globalizing age and reacting badly. In times of change religious people always turn to God and radicals always seek that which will either turn back the clock or punish those who are blamed for that change. If wish to use Iraq as your argument (others argument) that it created a training ground for terrorists you should turn your gaze South towards Yemen or West towards Africa where this type environment also exists without American invasion. It's a tired excuse argument that has little credibility for a region full of havoc, turmoil, and blood.
 
Democracy doesn't fix everything. Remember Palestinian elections? The problem isn't something we can fix by spreading democracy at gun point.

Democracy fixes almost everything because it is the only form of government dynamic enough to deal with the many problems of the MENA. Besides, dictators didn't work, monarchies haven't worked, theocracies haven't worked....perhaps since democracy works everywhere else it might work in the MENA. To suggest otherwise is bigotry.

Do you remember French elections? Remember that Napoleon guy that eventually emerged? Remember German elections? Remember that Hitler guy that emerged? If it took the mighty cheese eating French almost 60 years to get democracy correct and the beer guzzling Germans a course correction, perhaps we can forgive a few missteps that Muslims in the MENA take.

"Democracy at gun point" is another protestor default to pretend what happened in Iraq defines what the entire region is heading towards on their own. Elections in Iraq were never at gun point.
 
Hardly. Civilians have still been killed during this time, just as they had before. Only now they got to kill even more. We pretended nothing. You can't beat Tarzan by fighting Jane.

Did I say they weren't?

You want absolute concrete proof, but you cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove what didn't happen because something else did. We know they hate us and our allies. We know we disrupted their supply, command and training. We know they expended resources. So we know they had all of that and probably would of been using them against other targets if they had not used them there.

During the whole time of the Iraq war, how many successful attacks were carried out against US civilian targets?

So "Lighten up Francis."
 
Yes, two lies, agreed. There are lots of things that don't get enforced in this world, often with good reason. Our own people had even down played Saddam as a threat before this effort got started. The reason was because he wasn't one. Merely letting the inspectors finish would have been plenty.

I can see that you are busy on this thread, so I'll keep it light. You said we were not attacked and appear to at least acknowledge that we were--just not enough to justify the response. Got it. Now you are calling the Iraq War a lie and that some unnamed "our own people" played down Saddam as a threat. Saddam violated the ceasefire and he did block the inspectors, that was all the justification to respond that I feel is required. Did it justify the level of response? That will be debated for years. Did Saddam still have chemical weapons or was he bluffing? Not really clear to me, maybe Saddam's chemical weapons were just used in Syria.
 
Wrong.



Altruism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


I benefit from all of my actions (well, except the mistakes, and even those I learn from). I wouldn't do these things if they didn't make me feel better.

My definition was not wrong. And one could commit an altruistic action and still benefit in some way, it is just not done for outwardly selfish reasons. If you think putting your life on the line every day for the supposed purpose of helping the unfortunate (as you claimed) is not altruistic then really no action is.
 
Really? How so?

1. We invaded a sovereign country that did not directly threaten us.
2. I believe our leaders were dishonest about their motives. I think they were concerned over Hussein moving away from the petrodollar. WMD's were a convenient excuse in a post-911 world.
3. We aid other governments who have done worse to their citizens.
 
That's true. You have not been correct.

You claimed, disgustingly enough, that Saddam had not killed many just prior to the invasion. This grotesque ignorance was corrected, and now you know that Saddam starved 400k children just prior to the invasion.

Knowing is half the battle.
Saddam starved?? Uh, are you sure it wasn't the sanctions and lack of economic opportunity due to the draconian Western policies toward Iraq post Gulf War I that caused those deaths? Somehow I don't see Saddam taking bread out of the mouths of children. I do see the rich and powerful in Iraq hoarding what little food there is though.
 
1. We invaded a sovereign country that did not directly threaten us.
2. I believe our leaders were dishonest about their motives. I think they were concerned over Hussein moving away from the petrodollar. WMD's were a convenient excuse in a post-911 world.
3. We aid other governments who have done worse to their citizens.

So would you also say we shouldn't be getting involved in Syria?
 
Saddam starved?? Uh, are you sure it wasn't the sanctions and lack of economic opportunity due to the draconian Western policies toward Iraq post Gulf War I that caused those deaths?

Food that was provided during food-for-oil was discovered in surrounding countries. It was sufficient to prevent the starvation of 400k children that did starve. Of course, more than that starved, but we can identify 400k live-child worth of baby formula and child cereal that was instead sold for institutional rape.

We might note, sanctions never prevented the import of food or medicine. They have only been described as 'draconian' by the most extreme (and generally ignorant) positions. If you want draconian, check out Saddam's rape palaces, where HS girls were passed down the chain and then murdered - as a matter of state policy.
 
Last edited:
So would you also say we shouldn't be getting involved in Syria?

Absolutely not. If individuals and private groups want to get involved then that is their prerogative. I feel for the Syrian people just as I do for the Iraqis. I just don't trust the US State to handle it just as I'm sure you don't trust the State with your Social Security and taxes.
 
You were wrong about two things:

1. That Saddam had not slaughtered hundreds of thousands just prior to the invasion.
2. That the coalition killed more than Saddam.

Both statements are flat-out BS, according to undeniable evidence.

How can you be so determined in your ignorance?

1. He had not. I'm not wrong about that.

2. Not my claim. My claim was more died than would have otherwise.
 
1. He had not. I'm not wrong about that.

How can you ignore the intentional starvation of 400k children?

2. Not my claim. My claim was more died than would have otherwise.

Based on your crystal ball that contradicts all known history and reality.


And you know why, Boo? You did make that claim:

He was not saint, a terrible and brutal tyrant to be sure, but we killed more, much more by invading.

WRONG. Obviously wrong. An elementary school child could gather the sources necessary to see the idiocy of that claim!

How do you explain forgetting what you claimed just hours ago??
 
Last edited:
It would appear that I know far more than everyone here. Your explanations rely upon near sighted Intel that supports the maxim of either only predicting failure or merely reporting daily activity. It speaks nothing of historical understanding, nor does it take into account what is actually happening throughout the region. As these people move closer to democracy and liberal freedom, the religious nuts will gather their strengths, train more extremists, and react. This is natural to the course of all religions throughout the world. It has nothing to do with a single act in Iraq. It has everything to do with a people that are witnessing Islam's failure as an organizing tool (like European Catholicism before it) in the democratic/liberal modern globalizing age and reacting badly. In times of change religious people always turn to God and radicals always seek that which will either turn back the clock or punish those who are blamed for that change. If wish to use Iraq as your argument (others argument) that it created a training ground for terrorists you should turn your gaze South towards Yemen or West towards Africa where this type environment also exists without American invasion. It's a tired excuse argument that has little credibility for a region full of havoc, turmoil, and blood.

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.
 
Democracy fixes almost everything because it is the only form of government dynamic enough to deal with the many problems of the MENA. Besides, dictators didn't work, monarchies haven't worked, theocracies haven't worked....perhaps since democracy works everywhere else it might work in the MENA. To suggest otherwise is bigotry.

Do you remember French elections? Remember that Napoleon guy that eventually emerged? Remember German elections? Remember that Hitler guy that emerged? If it took the mighty cheese eating French almost 60 years to get democracy correct and the beer guzzling Germans a course correction, perhaps we can forgive a few missteps that Muslims in the MENA take.

"Democracy at gun point" is another protestor default to pretend what happened in Iraq defines what the entire region is heading towards on their own. Elections in Iraq were never at gun point.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom