• 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 .
OldWorldOrder said:
Or like blaming the British for helping create the US in the first place.
Click to expand...

Everything that the US has ever done bad is the Brit's fault. That's obvious.
 
ecofarm said:
This is like blaming someone for everything bad in your life because they called you a name in 3rd grade. Absolute, no doubt, pathetic nonsense.
Click to expand...

Hardly. That's silly tactic number 142. Minimize a debate by trying to make a trivial comparison. We invaded and destabilized a nation with cause. That's not mere name calling. Serious consequences are the by product of war, and unnecessary war, a war of once, makes us responsible.
 
Boo Radley said:
Hardly. That's silly tactic number 142. Minimize a debate by trying to make a trivial comparison. We invaded and destabilized a nation with cause. That's not mere name calling. Serious consequences are the by product of war, and unnecessary war, a war of once, makes us responsible.
Click to expand...

Keep blaming little Bobby for everything. After all, everything is the product of his war, an unnecessary war, a war of twice, makes him responsible. If that little bastard had not made fun of people, well, let's just say that everything would be perfect.

Damn you, Bobby! Damn you. Everything could have been perfect.
 
Boo Radley said:
Hardly. That's silly tactic number 142. Minimize a debate by trying to make a trivial comparison. We invaded and destabilized a nation with cause. That's not mere name calling. Serious consequences are the by product of war, and unnecessary war, a war of once, makes us responsible.
Click to expand...

It's over and done with now, so what's your point? I don't think that nation was too stable to begin with anyway.

BTW, I was thinking that you must be steamed at Obama too huh? He wants to give arms to the Syrian rebels. That must just rub you raw. Not only is he encouraging the destabilizing of the nation, but he is passing out guns to the rebels (and we all know how you feel about gun ownership), and those weapons are going to be used to kill people, maybe even in the future.
 
ChrisL said:
It's over and done with now, so what's your point? I don't think that nation was too stable to begin with anyway.

BTW, I was thinking that you must be steamed at Obama too huh? He wants to give arms to the Syrian rebels. That must just rub you raw. Not only is he encouraging the destabilizing of the nation, but he is passing out guns to the rebels (and we all know how you feel about gun ownership), and those weapons are going to be used to kill people, maybe even in the future.
Click to expand...

My point? I'm answering the question posed.

Obama hasn't invaded Syria. No pretext. No lies (as related to invading another country). Syria s already destabilized.

But, no, I have not been too happy with Obama. He's not equal to Bush for the reasons I listed. But drone strikes and string out Afghanistan have not pleased me.
 
ecofarm said:
Keep blaming little Bobby for everything. After all, everything is the product of his war, an unnecessary war, a war of twice, makes him responsible. If that little bastard had not made fun of people, well, let's just say that everything would be perfect.

Damn you, Bobby! Damn you. Everything could have been perfect.
Click to expand...

You'd be taken more seriously if you actually addressed the point.
 
Boo Radley said:
You'd be taken more seriously if you actually addressed the point.
Click to expand...

The point is that you assume everything would have been perfect and thereby blame everything on something in the past. Well, the point is that's a fail.
 
Boo Radley said:
My point? I'm answering the question posed.

Obama hasn't invaded Syria. No pretext. No lies (as related to invading another country). Syria s already destabilized.

But, no, I have not been too happy with Obama. He's not equal to Bush for the reasons I listed. But drone strikes and string out Afghanistan have not pleased me.
Click to expand...

He continued the wars, he's handing out guns for the purposes of war and killing, AND he's interfering in ME affairs. He is the antithesis to the liberal party I would think, so it's interesting how you kind of give him a pass.
 
ecofarm said:
The point is that you assume everything would have been perfect and thereby blame everything on something in the past. Well, the point is that's a fail.
Click to expand...

I assume nothing of the kind.
 
ChrisL said:
He continued the wars, he's handing out guns for the purposes of war and killing, AND he's interfering in ME affairs. He is the antithesis to the liberal party I would think, so it's interesting how you kind of give him a pass.
Click to expand...

Continuing isn't the same as starting. Once the damage was done, merely leaving was not really an option (regardless of who was president).

And who said democrats were liberal?
 
Boo Radley said:
Continuing isn't the same as starting. Once the damage was done, merely leaving was not really an option (regardless of who was president).
Click to expand...

Your hypocrisy is hilarious. :lamo He RAN on that platform, ending the wars, closing Gitmo, um what else did he lie about?

And who said democrats were liberal?
Click to expand...

I was referring to you. I specifically said that, and your lean says "liberal."
 
Boo Radley said:
I assume nothing of the kind.
Click to expand...

Of course you are. You attribute all bad stuff in Iraq to the US, as if things would have been perfect without an invasion. It's dishonest crap based upon some psychotic idea that when someone does something they become responsible for everything thereafter.
 
ChrisL said:
Your hypocrisy is hilarious. :lamo He RAN on that platform, ending the wars, closing Gitmo, um what else did he lie about?



I was referring to you. I specifically said that, and your lean says "liberal."
Click to expand...

He actually did what he ran on. Before he was elected, he accepted the Iraqi timeline. And he said he'd focus in Afghanistan. He tried to close Gitmo, that failure belongs to democrats in congress.

Lean. Lean liberal. Few of us are 100% anything. I'm also Catholic, former military, and quite a few other things. I voted for Dole over Clinton, and a lot for Grassley in Iowa. Arguing stereotypes may be easier, but less accurate.
 
ecofarm said:
Of course you are. You attribute all bad stuff in Iraq to the US, as if things would have been perfect without an invasion. It's dishonest crap based upon some psychotic idea that when someone does something they become responsible for everything thereafter.
Click to expand...

No, just responsible for what happened. No invasion, no 100 k plus deaths. It's really simple.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, just responsible for what happened. No invasion, no 100 k plus deaths. It's really simple.
Click to expand...

Saddam killed over 50k per year, averaging just the big stuff over his dictatorship.
 
ecofarm said:
Saddam killed over 50k per year, averaging just the big stuff over his dictatorship.
Click to expand...

Good point. I remember reading about how some Iraqis had stabbed him and poked him with sticks after he was dead, so it's not like he was the beloved dictator or anything. They hated him.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, they are not. Too many differences. Japan, a country, actually attacked us. Iraq did not. Germany who was already invading parts of the world declared war on us first. Iraq had no such ability nor threat. Pretending there are alike s the worse kind of dishonesty.
Click to expand...

I have no desire to equate Iraq with the Axis Powers of WWII, but how is denying that Iraq was violating the cease fire and firing on Coalition aircraft not a kind of dishonesty?
 
ecofarm said:
Saddam killed over 50k per year, averaging just the big stuff over his dictatorship.
Click to expand...

No such killing was going on at the time of the invasion. In fact, it hadn't for some time. As one Iraqi stated prior to the war, invading would just start the killing again. The Iraqi was correct. That's why HWR wrote an excellent paper on why our invasion was immoral. What we did was ad injury to injury.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
I have no desire to equate Iraq with the Axis Powers of WWII, but how is denying that Iraq was violating the cease fire and firing on Coalition aircraft not a kind of dishonesty?
Click to expand...

What's dishonest is equating that to WWII Germany. Pissing in the wind isn't equal to a power that had the world on the brink.
 
Boo Radley said:
What's dishonest is equating that to WWII Germany. Pissing in the wind isn't equal to a power that had the world on the brink.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I wrote as I have no interest in comparing the two. As for the rest: "how is denying that Iraq was violating the cease fire and firing on Coalition aircraft not a kind of dishonesty?" You say that we we weren't attacked by Iraq when I suspect that you meant that we weren't attacked enough.
 
ChrisL said:
He continued the wars, he's handing out guns for the purposes of war and killing, AND he's interfering in ME affairs. He is the antithesis to the liberal party I would think, so it's interesting how you kind of give him a pass.
Click to expand...
Actually Obama did the best thing he could do in Iraq which was absolutely nothing. Bush had already signed an agreement to withdraw troops. All Obama had to do was not screw it up...which he managed to pull off. Unfortunately, Bush did not leave a playbook for a way ahead in Afghanistan so Obama has been floundering. He initially copied the Bush sure which Candidate Obama was opposed to. The problem with that was that his 'surge' was not accomplanied by a specific mission and as a result, we have spent 5 years there not really going after the Taliban, not really having a plan to leave, not really knowing WTF we are doing. And his biggest PR concern there is the Afghanistan mission is the one he said he agreed with and should have engaged in so he cant even blame that one on Bush.

As a Commander in Chief he has pretty much copied the Bush playbook on everything knowing that the mindless liberals that support him wouldnt give half a damn if he ran against it or not.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
That isn't what I wrote as I have no interest in comparing the two. As for the rest: "how is denying that Iraq was violating the cease fire and firing on Coalition aircraft not a kind of dishonesty?" You say that we we weren't attacked by Iraq when I suspect that you meant that we weren't attacked enough.
Click to expand...

I never said it was. I said equating them to WWII Germany is.

However, neither of those reasons justified invasion. They couldn't hit us, and the violations were UN violations. Only the UN had the authority to enforce them. Besides, we let them violate a lot when it suited us. we were not afraid of Iraq.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, just responsible for what happened. No invasion, no 100 k plus deaths. It's really simple.
Click to expand...

So tell us. How many of those resources that the insurgents would of been used against the US or Israel had they not been expended in Iraq and Afghanistan? How much money, munitions and effort did the Iraqi invasion cause to be expended there instead of focused towards America itself?

Does it such ass that troops get killed and maimed there? Sure as hell does. But then again, if that resource is used against them there, it is not available to be used against US civilians. It is part of being in the military. If a US Citizen is going to die from an attack from outside sources, it is every military members sworn duty to die before a single civilian is hurt. It is one of the reasons they exist. They volunteer to put themselves in harms way so that that harm is not focused against the ones they love and care about back home.

We were sitting on Saddam for 12+ years. During that time, he didn't do much. How much longer and how much more should we spend sitting on him to ensure his good behavior? How many of our own resources were tied up with sitting on him?

For every bullet, bomb, bomber, etc used in Iraq and Afghanistan to kill other Afghans and Iraqis, how many US Citizens, Brits, Israelis, etc would of died if those resources hadn't been used up in Iraq and would of been used elsewhere instead? We don't know, we can't know, because we forced those resources to used there instead.

Does it suck that so many Iraqis died? Sure, but, from our point of view, better that some Iraqis die than school children and innocents in the States or in the countries of our allies die instead.

So, yeah, no invasion may equal no 100K+ Iraqis dead. But then again, that could of meant thousands of Americans/Allies dead instead. We chose to have them use those resources there instead of here, so we will never know what would of happened had we not invaded, but since all those involved against us and against each other there could of used those resources here instead of there, I choose to believe that that choice was a good one.
 
ecofarm said:
Saddam killed over 50k per year, averaging just the big stuff over his dictatorship.
Click to expand...


You couldn't possible be more naïve. Saddam was no danger, no threat, and it has only cost a couple of trillion dollars of hard earned taxpayer dollars being diverted into the Corporate Military/Industrial Complex to get rid of him. Now we have to get rid of the stench of death or deny it, as you've chosen to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom