• 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!

Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS[W:452]

Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

The IBC is but one source of estimate on the civilians killed in Iraq. There are many sources, and I'll post the range for you again here.

Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million. Iraqis died as a result of the conflict.

Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as Upsideguy correctly pointed out to you, killing civilians in an attempt to remove Saddam Hussein for killing civilians is stupid!

As I suspected you were stuck in a faulty assumption. You are dumping insurgent and Iraqi army deaths in with the total. That is not what is or was being discussed. If that were my point then I would have included deaths from the Iran/Iraq war and the Gulf War into my totals and the deaths caused by Saddam would be closer to 2.5 million.

Let me post that whole paragraph for you, Montecresto, since you mysteriously cut out the important part:

"Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants."

Huh, editing out the part that proves you wrong? Typical.
 
Last edited:
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Moderator's Warning:
Lets stop with the personal remarks and stick to the topic or infractions/thread bans will be handed out.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

To the bolded, you lost me there dude, the rest probably has as much meaning. You came to DP to peddle a singular point Muslim=Enemy, and I'm not interested.

Statistical methods applied to the Islamic texts showed that:

Islam is far more of a political system than a religion.

There is no unmitigated good in Islam for the Kafir (non-Muslim).

Islam’s ethical system is dualistic and is not based on the Golden Rule.

Islamic doctrine cannot be reconciled with our concepts of human rights and our Constitution.

The great majority, 96%, of all Islamic doctrine about women subjugates them.

The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is more important than the Koran in a Muslim’s daily life.


Dr. Bill Warner, Author - Political Islam

And this is why the Iraqi Army flees before the ISIS forces.

Their allegiance and orientation is to Allah and they know that ISIS = the REAL followers of Allah.

It is time we realize this costly lesson and not waste another dollar or a single US life there.
 
Last edited:
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

As I suspected you were stuck in a faulty assumption. You are dumping insurgent and Iraqi army deaths in with the total. That is not what is or was being discussed. If that were my point then I would have included deaths from the Iran/Iraq war and the Gulf War into my totals and the deaths caused by Saddam would be closer to 2.5 million.

Let me post that whole paragraph for you, Montecresto, since you mysteriously cut out the important part:

"Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants."

Huh, editing out the part that proves you wrong? Typical.
Excuse me for coming in late but are there figures available for those Iraqis killed by Coalition troops and those murdered by Islamists?
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Excuse me for coming in late but are there figures available for those Iraqis killed by Coalition troops and those murdered by Islamists?

The IBC did an audit of their figures between 2003 and 2005 and found that 37% of the dead civilians were the result of coalition actions. I haven't seen an accounting of the full 9 years.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Y
As I suspected you were stuck in a faulty assumption. You are dumping insurgent and Iraqi army deaths in with the total. That is not what is or was being discussed. If that were my point then I would have included deaths from the Iran/Iraq war and the Gulf War into my totals and the deaths caused by Saddam would be closer to 2.5 million.

Let me post that whole paragraph for you, Montecresto, since you mysteriously cut out the important part:

"Scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War found that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, found that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants."

Huh, editing out the part that proves you wrong? Typical.

Saved by the in-thread warning and your selective numbers from just the IBC, who aren't the only group to compile numbers on Iraqi civilian deaths during the ten year war. Also, any numbers accepted don't account for the wounded which would be two-three times the dead, and no numbers include the related deaths due to the destruction of needed infrastructure, nor the deaths subsequent to injuries sustained by bombing.

Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html

"We think it is roughly around half a million people dead. And that is likely a low estimate," says Hagopian. "People need to know the cost in human lives of the decision to go to war."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131015-iraq-war-deaths-survey-2013

Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256

And the IBC uses a inaccurate method for counting.

Several other attempts have been made to estimate the war dead, and particularly civilians killed by violence. Iraq Body Count is the most well known. It counted individuals reported in English-language newspapers, mainly, which SEVERELY limited its scope. The problem with these methods is that they only capture part of the total picture.

http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/
 
Last edited:
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Statistical methods applied to the Islamic texts showed that:

Islam is far more of a political system than a religion.

There is no unmitigated good in Islam for the Kafir (non-Muslim).

Islam’s ethical system is dualistic and is not based on the Golden Rule.

Islamic doctrine cannot be reconciled with our concepts of human rights and our Constitution.

The great majority, 96%, of all Islamic doctrine about women subjugates them.

The Sunna (what Mohammed did and said) is more important than the Koran in a Muslim’s daily life.


Dr. Bill Warner, Author - Political Islam

And this is why the Iraqi Army flees before the ISIS forces.

Their allegiance and orientation is to Allah and they know that ISIS = the REAL followers of Allah.

It is time we realize this costly lesson and not waste another dollar or a single US life there.

Perhaps posting this in the Religious forums would better suit your purpose.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Y

Saved by the in-thread warning and your selective numbers from just the IBC, who aren't the only group to compile numbers on Iraqi civilian deaths during the ten year war. Also, any numbers accepted don't account for the wounded which would be two-three times the dead, and no numbers include the related deaths due to the destruction of needed infrastructure, nor the deaths subsequent to injuries sustained by bombing.

Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says
Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says

"We think it is roughly around half a million people dead. And that is likely a low estimate," says Hagopian. "People need to know the cost in human lives of the decision to go to war."
Half-Million Iraqis Died in the War, New Study Says

Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000
Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000 - BBC News

And the IBC uses a inaccurate method for counting.

Several other attempts have been made to estimate the war dead, and particularly civilians killed by violence. Iraq Body Count is the most well known. It counted individuals reported in English-language newspapers, mainly, which SEVERELY limited its scope. The problem with these methods is that they only capture part of the total picture.

The Human Cost of the War in Iraq


And again you choose to argue the total dead rather than the civilian dead which was the actual discussion. You've simply moved the goalposts. Multiple verifications for a counter argument to a point I never made is a waste of both of our time.

I like how you post the source that uses IBC to tally the civilian deaths and then YOU fault me for using the IBC! :lamo
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

And again you choose to argue the total dead rather than the civilian dead which was the actual discussion. You've simply moved the goalposts. Multiple verifications for a counter argument to a point I never made is a waste of both of our time.

I like how you post the source that uses IBC to tally the civilian deaths and then YOU fault me for using the IBC! :lamo

No fault for using the IBC. The fault is in relying on it exclusively, which as MIT points out is inadequate.

And, the more recent BBC study corrects the faulty IBC count from earlier.

About half a million people died in Iraq as a result of war-related causes between the US-led invasion in 2003 and mid-2011, an academic study suggests.
University researchers from the US, Canada and Iraq based their estimate on randomised surveys of 2,000 households.
The toll includes not only violent deaths from the invasion and subsequent insurgency, but avoidable fatalities linked to infrastructure collapse.
It exceeds the 112,000 violent civilian deaths reported by Iraq Body Count.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24547256
 
Last edited:
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

The IBC did an audit of their figures between 2003 and 2005 and found that 37% of the dead civilians were the result of coalition actions. I haven't seen an accounting of the full 9 years.
Yet those figures would be very important because we can all recall the suicide bombings against the Iraqi people, threats against the people if they tried to vote, etc., with Muslim murdering Muslin, and the precursors of ISL taking shape. List of bombings during the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

No fault for using the IBC. The fault is in relying on it exclusively, which as MIT points out is inadequate.

And, the more recent BBC study corrects the faulty IBC count from earlier.

About half a million people died in Iraq as a result of war-related causes between the US-led invasion in 2003 and mid-2011, an academic study suggests.
University researchers from the US, Canada and Iraq based their estimate on randomised surveys of 2,000 households.
The toll includes not only violent deaths from the invasion and subsequent insurgency, but avoidable fatalities linked to infrastructure collapse.
It exceeds the 112,000 violent civilian deaths reported by Iraq Body Count.

Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000 - BBC News
The end of the article states that
The researchers warn that their estimates are associated with "substantial uncertainties". Their estimated death toll was extrapolated from a small representative sample of households, and respondents were asked to recall events that occurred up to 10 years earlier. They also had to rely on outdated census data from 1987 for their population figures.

It also does not mention that it was the Islamists who were doing much of the killing, damaging the infrastructure, etc. , and whose goals were clear at the time, have been for years, and are closer to fruition today.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

A
The end of the article states that

It also does not mention that it was the Islamists who were doing much of the killing, damaging the infrastructure, etc. , and whose goals were clear at the time, have been for years, and are closer to fruition today.

The "Islamists" improvised ordinance doesn't compare to the U.S. Military's, sorry. Infrastructure was destroyed by U.S. Bombing.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

A

The "Islamists" improvised ordinance doesn't compare to the U.S. Military's, sorry. Infrastructure was destroyed by U.S. Bombing.
If you'll recall the Americans were trying to rebuild the infrastructure while it was being sabotaged by the Islamists. I call them Islamists because , had you read the history in the link i attaced, you would have seen that Al Qaeda and ISL were also involved. Rather than naming each group I used the generic "Islamists". Do you have a problem with the term?

Nor did I claim that the ordinance was comparable, which is a silly remark.

Read, understand, learn, and then comment.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

If you'll recall the Americans were trying to rebuild the infrastructure while it was being sabotaged by the Islamists. I call them Islamists because , had you read the history in the link i attaced, you would have seen that Al Qaeda and ISL were also involved. Rather than naming each group I used the generic "Islamists". Do you have a problem with the term?

Nor did I claim that the ordinance was comparable, which is a silly remark.

Read, understand, learn, and then comment.

NOTHING is because Grant says it is. Let that be established first. Comparing the ordinance used by the U.S. With that improvised available to the fighting groups is very relevant. The infrastructure being built was primarily to facilitate Americas largest embassy in the world. Not every fighter is an Islamist, many were there for the money, hired guns, but I don't expect you to ever put down your broad brush.

Now then, read, understand, learn and then keep quiet if it belies the facts.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

NOTHING is because Grant says it is. Let that be established first. Comparing the ordinance used by the U.S. With that improvised available to the fighting groups is very relevant. The infrastructure being built was primarily to facilitate Americas largest embassy in the world. Not every fighter is an Islamist, many were there for the money, hired guns, but I don't expect you to ever put down your broad brush.

Now then, read, understand, learn and then keep quiet if it belies the facts.
I supplied links containing the facts which you appear to have ignored. If you have a problem with facts you are simply debating your beliefs, and they are as unreliable as those of adolescent teenagers entering puberty.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

I supplied links containing the facts which you appear to have ignored. If you have a problem with facts you are simply debating your beliefs, and they are as unreliable as those of adolescent teenagers entering puberty.

You supplied incomplete data!! As noted in all the links I provided. Personal insults aren't effective debating tools.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Yet those figures would be very important because we can all recall the suicide bombings against the Iraqi people, threats against the people if they tried to vote, etc., with Muslim murdering Muslin, and the precursors of ISL taking shape. List of bombings during the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure. If the IBC found in their study that 37% of civilian deaths were due to coalition actions, then their conclusion would be that 45,000 or so civilian deaths came at the hand of coalition actions. Others who have the sole purpose of painting America in the worst light will claim that all casualties on both sides are entirely the fault of the American coalition.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Sure. If the IBC found in their study that 37% of civilian deaths were due to coalition actions, then their conclusion would be that 45,000 or so civilian deaths came at the hand of coalition actions. Others who have the sole purpose of painting America in the worst light will claim that all casualties on both sides are entirely the fault of the American coalition.

There was no fighters, no terrorists in Iraq until Bush stepped foot in there. I will remind you that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had the (presumably????) opposite desired effect of causing an increase to global trrorism and made America less safe. The United States owns Iraq for having broken it, that includes any civilians killed by the Islamic extremists invited into Iraq by the U.S. Military's ill advised presence there.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

No fault for using the IBC. The fault is in relying on it exclusively, which as MIT points out is inadequate.

Holy crap, dude. Are you honestly trying to fault me for only using the single source you were using to try and prove your point?

And, the more recent BBC study corrects the faulty IBC count from earlier.

About half a million people died in Iraq as a result of war-related causes between the US-led invasion in 2003 and mid-2011, an academic study suggests.
University researchers from the US, Canada and Iraq based their estimate on randomised surveys of 2,000 households.
The toll includes not only violent deaths from the invasion and subsequent insurgency, but avoidable fatalities linked to infrastructure collapse.
It exceeds the 112,000 violent civilian deaths reported by Iraq Body Count.

Iraq study estimates war-related deaths at 461,000 - BBC News

OK, let's sum up:

1) I make a statement regarding the number of deaths attributable to Saddam Hussein
2) You challenge my claim.
3) I document the source of the numbers I used in my claim.
4) You accuse me of picking the high numbers when discussing Hussein and the low numbers when talking about deaths attributed to the US
5) I ask you were I have ever discussed US death tolls
6) Instead of proving your point you post an article on Iraqi casualties
7) I read the article and point out that your source put the Iraqi deaths at 123,000
8) You accuse me of choosing the low estimate again
9) I point out to you that I used the high estimate from your source
10 You cast away your original source in favor of a new source that has a... wait for it... higher estimate.

So it took you this long to actually and demonstrably do what you falsely accused me of doing at the very beginning.

Thanks for playing.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

There was no fighters, no terrorists in Iraq until Bush stepped foot in there. I will remind you that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had the (presumably????) opposite desired effect of causing an increase to global trrorism and made America less safe. The United States owns Iraq for having broken it, that includes any civilians killed by the Islamic extremists invited into Iraq by the U.S. Military's ill advised presence there.

And Bush handed Obama a stable Iraq under the protection of the US military. Obama removed that protection. That isn't Bush's fault.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Holy crap, dude. Are you honestly trying to fault me for only using the single source you were using to try and prove your point?



OK, let's sum up:

1) I make a statement regarding the number of deaths attributable to Saddam Hussein
2) You challenge my claim.
3) I document the source of the numbers I used in my claim.
4) You accuse me of picking the high numbers when discussing Hussein and the low numbers when talking about deaths attributed to the US
5) I ask you were I have ever discussed US death tolls
6) Instead of proving your point you post an article on Iraqi casualties
7) I read the article and point out that your source put the Iraqi deaths at 123,000
8) You accuse me of choosing the low estimate again
9) I point out to you that I used the high estimate from your source
10 You cast away your original source in favor of a new source that has a... wait for it... higher estimate.

So it took you this long to actually and demonstrably do what you falsely accused me of doing at the very beginning.

Thanks for playing.

I have provided multiple sources for the Iraqi deaths caused by U.S. Hostilities, the IBC was but one source amongst them. I also showed how the BBC's more recent study, using more complete data then the 08 IBC study used, pointed out the shortcomings of it. ;)
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

I have provided multiple sources for the Iraqi deaths caused by U.S. Hostilities, the IBC was but one source amongst them. I also showed how the BBC's more recent study, using more complete data then the 08 IBC study used, pointed out the shortcomings of it. ;)

You provided the single source that I commented on, your extra sources later don't all make the point you want to make, and in the end the only person guilty of hunting for the higher estimate was you.

Case. Closed.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

And Bush handed Obama a stable Iraq under the protection of the US military. Obama removed that protection. That isn't Bush's fault.

Bush certainly bears zero responsibility post January 20, 2009. His responsibility is for breaking Iraq, and creating the vacuum that drew in al Qaeda from Afghanistan, which formed the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006 and one more time, which caused an increase, not just in Iraq, but GLOBALLY, in terrorism, and made America, less safe, which Obama shares zero responsibility for. Also, the foolishness of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is nearly universally accepted, globally, even by the GOP congress. You're in a fringe group, desperate for relevancy, but you have none in this.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

You provided the single source that I commented on, your extra sources later don't all make the point you want to make, and in the end the only person guilty of hunting for the higher estimate was you.

Case. Closed.

You're not a judge, much as you wish you were.
 
Re: Iraqi forces losing 'will to fight' against ISIS

Bush certainly bears zero responsibility post January 20, 2009. His responsibility is for breaking Iraq, and creating the vacuum that drew in al Qaeda from Afghanistan, which formed the Islamic State of Iraq in 2006 and one more time, which caused an increase, not just in Iraq, but GLOBALLY, in terrorism, and made America, less safe, which Obama shares zero responsibility for. Also, the foolishness of the invasion and occupation of Iraq is nearly universally accepted, globally, even by the GOP congress. You're in a fringe group, desperate for relevancy, but you have none in this.

Again, Bush didn't create a vacuum. The power position was filled by US troops.
 
Back
Top Bottom