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


The problem for too many people is that they insist that Bush started anything. Bush merely inherited this Frankenstein's Monster region and reacted to the symptoms. 9/11, Osama, Al-Queda, Hussein, Gaddafi, the House of Saud, Hezbollah, Assad, etc. are all symptoms of an entire civilization failing before your very eyes. The consequence of that failure (under Muslim leadership) is the creation of Islamic terrorist organizations that seek "foreign devils" to blame for their own culture's doing. The Middle East was a powder keg and 9/11 was merely the Arch Duke Ferdinand of the situation. The later Arab Spring, where the populations finally erupted over their dictators, is and was always in the cards. Tribal slaughter and religious excitement was always in the making. It merely needed the push that Iraqi voters in 2010 gave them. I realize that war protestors demand that Iraq remain a black hole for which no Muslim can see, but this just isn't practical to the media outlet frenzy world we live in. It's amazing how many people on the Left continue to pretend in falsehoods over this region and even more amazing is the Right's complaint and fear about the Arab Spring that screamed "democracy" and not "caliphate." Today, both ignorantly complain about Syria even as it systematically pulls every nation in its surrounding proximity towards reaction. Bigger wars start this way. Even World Wars start this way. Perhaps we should wait until the small event turns into something grand so that we can send hundreds of thousands of troops to their deaths in a serious war years from now. After all, that seems to be what people demand in order to feel "justified" in military action.

And who said democrats were liberal?

The same kind of folk that say Republicans are Conservative. And yes, Liberals have and continue to give Obama his because "Hope and Change" continues to be the fantasy. The great Bush critic has merely turned out to be a Bush systems supporter and a whistle blower's nightmare. Bombing Pakistan with escalating UAV strikes, NSA surveillances, mobey from lobbyists, and worsening transparency are just a few of the issues that "Hope and Change" defines. Personally, I don't care either way about that. I voted for McCain and then I voted last year for Obama. Not because I believe in none of their BS, but because I believe in the truth of the world. But the greatest joke is to watch Republicans and Conservatives criticize what they used to support as Democrats and Liberals support today what they used to pathetically whine about. "Hope and Change"....."Camelot"....what is it with Liberals and their fantasy White Houses?

The sooner Americans recognize that the majority of them have no representation in Washington the sooner things will change. Like economic recessions, political decrepitness is historically cyclical.
 
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.

How much was it costing us, to the same people, to sit on him for 12+ years? How long would we have had to sustain that into the future to keep him under control?

Read post #374, the same statements and questions are no directed towards you also.
 
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.

Very little. It took them 8 years between the first towers attack and the second, and used no wmds. Cato wrote a nice piece on why hadn't Saddam already destroyed us. Answer, he couldn't. Iraq was a huge overreaction. Just what bin Laden hoped for. It allowed the the opportunity to hurt us that they didn't have, and as the CIA noted some years ago, the training they received in Iraq due to our invasion will allow for killing around the world for years to come. We could not have been more reckless.

So no, your premise is mistaken. More have and will die due to or hubris than would have had we exercised restraint and handled the situation appropriately.
 
The problem for too many people is that they insist that Bush started anything. Bush merely inherited this Frankenstein's Monster region and reacted to the symptoms. 9/11, Osama, Al-Queda, Hussein, Gaddafi, the House of Saud, Hezbollah, Assad, etc. are all symptoms of an entire civilization failing before your very eyes. The consequence of that failure (under Muslim leadership) is the creation of Islamic terrorist organizations that seek "foreign devils" to blame for their own culture's doing. The Middle East was a powder keg and 9/11 was merely the Arch Duke Ferdinand of the situation. The later Arab Spring, where the populations finally erupted over their dictators, is and was always in the cards. Tribal slaughter and religious excitement was always in the making. It merely needed the push that Iraqi voters in 2010 gave them. I realize that war protestors demand that Iraq remain a black hole for which no Muslim can see, but this just isn't practical to the media outlet frenzy world we live in. It's amazing how many people on the Left continue to pretend in falsehoods over this region and even more amazing is the Right's complaint and fear about the Arab Spring that screamed "democracy" and not "caliphate." Today, both ignorantly complain about Syria even as it systematically pulls every nation in its surrounding proximity towards reaction. Bigger wars start this way. Even World Wars start this way. Perhaps we should wait until the small event turns into something grand so that we can send hundreds of thousands of troops to their deaths in a serious war years from now. After all, that seems to be what people demand in order to feel "justified" in military action.



The same kind of folk that say Republicans are Conservative. And yes, Liberals have and continue to give Obama his because "Hope and Change" continues to be the fantasy. The great Bush critic has merely turned out to be a Bush systems supporter and a whistle blower's nightmare. Bombing Pakistan with escalating UAV strikes, NSA surveillances, mobey from lobbyists, and worsening transparency are just a few of the issues that "Hope and Change" defines. Personally, I don't care either way about that. I voted for McCain and then I voted last year for Obama. Not because I believe in none of their BS, but because I believe in the truth of the world. But the greatest joke is to watch Republicans and Conservatives criticize what they used to support as Democrats and Liberals support today what they used to pathetically whine about. "Hope and Change"....."Camelot"....what is it with Liberals and their fantasy White Houses?

The sooner Americans recognize that the majority of them have no representation in Washington the sooner things will change. Like economic recessions, political decrepitness is historically cyclical.

I don't know anyone who says Bush started EVERYTHING. It is enough that he invaded Iraq on a pretext, a reckless and costly act.

And f you want to argue there's little difference between democrats and republicans, I won't argue with that.
 
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.

Or simply accept the path laid before us and stop behaving as if ignorance is a religion of worship. Do you not see the entire Middle East erupting? This continual focus on Saddam Hussein as if his was an island set aside from the MENA is tired and pathetic. It's as pathetic as supporters who still insist on WMD. Only fools continue this obsession to pretend that Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc. are separate issues. This is a civilization cracked apart by bad borders containing bad tribal blood living under religious and fascist style oppression seeking "foreign devils" to blame. - Hence 9/11 as a decades long culmination of exceedingly organizing terrorist activity where memberships come from all of the nations in this region.

Stench of death? Corporate Military/Industrial Complex? Without dealing with Iraq I guess this wouldn't exist. Death and militancy are products of being sucked out into the world. Isolationism is the cure to both. Of course, this merely means sitting around watching our trades and economy disruptions as people like Europeans create World Wars and force our emergence if only to protect our interests. We could do nothing and wait for the Middle East's tribes to develop nuclear weapons as they bicker and cripple the world's economy. That way we can send millions to their deaths.
 
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.

As I said, we were attacked, but you do not feel that it justifies the actions taken in response. I don't really care about the UN in this circumstance since they created the original justification and the US led coalition was the enforcement mechanism. It was that original authorization which justified all the rest once the cease fire was violated. I don't understand your assertion that we let them violate a lot when it suited us. As I recall, they violated a number of times--seems like restraint to me.

As for couldn't hit us, your only basis is whether they could hit US territory? As for being afraid or not of Iraq, if we were afraid, would we have even reinstated hostilities?
 
No such killing was going on at the time of the invasion. In fact, it hadn't for some time.

False. Saddam starved 400k children by selling food obtained from the food-for-oil program - just prior to the invasion. He spent that money on cronies, rape palaces, torture and slaughtering his domestic enemies.
 
Last edited:
False. Saddam starved 400k children by selling food obtained from the food-for-oil program - just prior to the invasion. He spent that money on cronies, rape palaces, oppression, torture and killing his domestic enemies.

War didn't help them much. Sorry, but that doesn't fly either. They're also still pretty oppressed. There's a reason they're not thanking us.
 
War didn't help them much. Sorry, but that doesn't fly either. They're also still pretty oppressed. There's a reason they're not thanking us.

Now that you have been corrected, I expect that specific falsehood will no longer come from you. Thanks.


Don't forget, kids:


Saddam starved 400k children, on purpose, to get money for rape palaces, immediately prior to the invasion.
 
As I said, we were attacked, but you do not feel that it justifies the actions taken in response. I don't really care about the UN in this circumstance since they created the original justification and the US led coalition was the enforcement mechanism. It was that original authorization which justified all the rest once the cease fire was violated. I don't understand your assertion that we let them violate a lot when it suited us. As I recall, they violated a number of times--seems like restraint to me.

As for couldn't hit us, your only basis is whether they could hit US territory? As for being afraid or not of Iraq, if we were afraid, would we have even reinstated hostilities?

We were charged with monitoring breaking sanctions and selling oil. We let Saddam sell oil to our alies, turning a blind eye. Whether care about the UN or not, the sanctions were theirs and not ours.

Yes, we would have to fear some action was possible, or invading makes no logical sense. We weren't and it didn't, but the story they told was that we were in fact afraid. And they used the politics of fear to get us there.
 
Now that you have been corrected, I expect that specific falsehood will no longer come from you. Thanks.


Don't forget kids:


Saddam starved 400k children, on purpose, to get money for rape palaces, immediately prior to the invasion.

I have not been correct. More were killed out right in the invasion and by the after effects of war. We saved no one nor anything.
 
I have not been correct. More were killed out right in the invasion and by the after effects of war. We saved no one nor anything.

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.
 
I don't know anyone who says Bush started EVERYTHING. It is enough that he invaded Iraq on a pretext, a reckless and costly act.

His excuses to the public were pathetic. Equally pathetic, however, is the protestor who relies on those excuses to define the event 10 years later.

The invasion of Iraq was about something far bigger than the simplistic excuses that the American public needed to hear. You are witnessing the entire region moving past their dictators and evolving into what the rest of the world was allowed to become because of what you call a "reckless act." Whether or not the Rumsfeld Coven recognized what they were doing is irrelevant. They stumbled upon it.

Pretending that Iraq is Iraq and Syria is Syria and Egypt is Egypt is to deny the fact that this is a tribal regional civilization of very like mind and very like wants who are only separated because or reckless European colonialism. Consider the invasion of Iraq as a step to reverse it. People who walk around confused today in regards to the MENA are probably the same sort who were aghast when they watched Yugoslavia crack up in the 1990s. A protestor in Tunisia sparks the Arab Spring throughout the region in multiple countries? A region full of like minded people following each other down the same path even though others live behind different borders? Parts of the populations of these countries sympathize with parts of the populations of other nations in such a way that one would think we are looking at family? This should not confuse people. This is historical. It happened twice in the 20th century and both were after major events in the region. The first time was after WWI when Muslim Arabs rose up against their colonizers and demanded democracy. European colonialism won. The second was after WWII when Muslim Arabs rose up against their European colonizers and demanded democracy. Muslim militant coups won as most of Europe left to lick its wounds and dictators formed. Today, we see Iraqi voters in October 2010 vote in a free election without outside security and two months later a man in Tunisia had enough as he sparked another Muslim Arab cry for democracy throughout the region.

What I find terribly tragic is how people are completely oblivious to this history as they whine about the danger of ridding this region of dictators, supporting the Arab Spring, or arming rebels against one of the last standing chemical gas using dictators in the region.
 
We were charged with monitoring breaking sanctions and selling oil. We let Saddam sell oil to our alies, turning a blind eye. Whether care about the UN or not, the sanctions were theirs and not ours.

Yes, we would have to fear some action was possible, or invading makes no logical sense. We weren't and it didn't, but the story they told was that we were in fact afraid. And they used the politics of fear to get us there.

I acknowledge that invading Iraq makes no logical sense to you. We were attacked, in a much more tangible way than the Gulf on Tonkin. Perhaps you can envision no possible justification for the actions taken, but then why bother enforcing anything.
 
Saddam starved 400k children, on purpose, to get money for rape palaces, immediately prior to the invasion.

Well, rape rooms was a policy of his police and military to terrorize the Shia into maintained compliance. The starving of the children was the result of the UN mission to support his throne in the wonderful name of "stability." He allowed the starvation to thumb his nose at the West. Coincidentally, Osama Bin Laden pointed out this starvation as a part of the legitimacy for 9/11. For protestors to default to the tired "Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11" is morally decrepit and ignorant. By all means, keep the mission going. It's not making anybody mad.
 
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.

Had not killed in those numbers and he had not. Kids starved during he war and still today, but you ignore this. Killing people to save them s not too effective, but the fact remains the violence spoke if was not happening.
 
Very little. It took them 8 years between the first towers attack and the second, and used no wmds. Cato wrote a nice piece on why hadn't Saddam already destroyed us. Answer, he couldn't. Iraq was a huge overreaction. Just what bin Laden hoped for. It allowed the the opportunity to hurt us that they didn't have, and as the CIA noted some years ago, the training they received in Iraq due to our invasion will allow for killing around the world for years to come. We could not have been more reckless.

So no, your premise is mistaken. More have and will die due to or hubris than would have had we exercised restraint and handled the situation appropriately.

Ok then. What does WMDs or Iraq destroying us have to do with anything I said? How did it give them an opportunity to hurt us they didn't have? It did focus them upon or military instead of ours civilians, so I guess that is giving them an opportunity they didn't have. Did they get some experience and training from it? Sure, but don't you think we did too?
 
Had not killed in those numbers and he had not. Kids starved during he war and still today, but you ignore this. Killing people to save them s not too effective, but the fact remains the violence spoke if was not happening.

He starved 400k children, ON PURPOSE, he sold their food to support institutional rape, torture and killings, just prior to the invasion.

Deal with reality.

You stand corrected.
 
More have and will die due to or hubris than would have had we exercised restraint and handled the situation appropriately.

Like just keeping the UN mission going despite justification given to men like Osama Bin Laden for 9/11. Restraint is exactly why the region turned into what it is today. Pretending that we could support dictators forever is why wide sweeping oppression and rage exists today. Complaining about the immediate results of opening a can of shaken up soda does nothing to change the fact that eventually you needed to open that can of soda. Of course, we can just throw away the can of soda or merely stop shaking it up. Unfortunately, we couldn't just throw the MEAN away and the shaking was out of our control.

By the way, restraint is also what gave Syria time to eventually use chemical weapons. Maybe with enough restraint we can watch the region develop nuclear weapons. Then we'll have a party.
 
His excuses to the public were pathetic. Equally pathetic, however, is the protestor who relies on those excuses to define the event 10 years later.

The invasion of Iraq was about something far bigger than the simplistic excuses that the American public needed to hear. You are witnessing the entire region moving past their dictators and evolving into what the rest of the world was allowed to become because of what you call a "reckless act." Whether or not the Rumsfeld Coven recognized what they were doing is irrelevant. They stumbled upon it.

Pretending that Iraq is Iraq and Syria is Syria and Egypt is Egypt is to deny the fact that this is a tribal regional civilization of very like mind and very like wants who are only separated because or reckless European colonialism. Consider the invasion of Iraq as a step to reverse it. People who walk around confused today in regards to the MENA are probably the same sort who were aghast when they watched Yugoslavia crack up in the 1990s. A protestor in Tunisia sparks the Arab Spring throughout the region in multiple countries? A region full of like minded people following each other down the same path even though others live behind different borders? Parts of the populations of these countries sympathize with parts of the populations of other nations in such a way that one would think we are looking at family? This should not confuse people. This is historical. It happened twice in the 20th century and both were after major events in the region. The first time was after WWI when Muslim Arabs rose up against their colonizers and demanded democracy. European colonialism won. The second was after WWII when Muslim Arabs rose up against their European colonizers and demanded democracy. Muslim militant coups won as most of Europe left to lick its wounds and dictators formed. Today, we see Iraqi voters in October 2010 vote in a free election without outside security and two months later a man in Tunisia had enough as he sparked another Muslim Arab cry for democracy throughout the region.

What I find terribly tragic is how people are completely oblivious to this history as they whine about the danger of ridding this region of dictators, supporting the Arab Spring, or arming rebels against one of the last standing chemical gas using dictators in the region.

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.
 
Or simply accept the path laid before us and stop behaving as if ignorance is a religion of worship. Do you not see the entire Middle East erupting? This continual focus on Saddam Hussein as if his was an island set aside from the MENA is tired and pathetic. It's as pathetic as supporters who still insist on WMD. Only fools continue this obsession to pretend that Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, etc. are separate issues. This is a civilization cracked apart by bad borders containing bad tribal blood living under religious and fascist style oppression seeking "foreign devils" to blame. - Hence 9/11 as a decades long culmination of exceedingly organizing terrorist activity where memberships come from all of the nations in this region.

Stench of death? Corporate Military/Industrial Complex? Without dealing with Iraq I guess this wouldn't exist. Death and militancy are products of being sucked out into the world. Isolationism is the cure to both. Of course, this merely means sitting around watching our trades and economy disruptions as people like Europeans create World Wars and force our emergence if only to protect our interests. We could do nothing and wait for the Middle East's tribes to develop nuclear weapons as they bicker and cripple the world's economy. That way we can send millions to their deaths.


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.
 
Ok then. What does WMDs or Iraq destroying us have to do with anything I said? How did it give them an opportunity to hurt us they didn't have? It did focus them upon or military instead of ours civilians, so I guess that is giving them an opportunity they didn't have. Did they get some experience and training from it? Sure, but don't you think we did too?

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.
 
I acknowledge that invading Iraq makes no logical sense to you. We were attacked, in a much more tangible way than the Gulf on Tonkin. Perhaps you can envision no possible justification for the actions taken, but then why bother enforcing anything.

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.
 
He starved 400k children, ON PURPOSE, he sold their food to support institutional rape, torture and killings, just prior to the invasion.

Deal with reality.

You stand corrected.

He was not saint, a terrible and brutal tyrant to be sure, but we killed more, much more by invading. Sorry.
 
He starved 400k children, ON PURPOSE, he sold their food to support institutional rape, torture and killings, just prior to the invasion.

Deal with reality.

You stand corrected.

But none of this matters. It never did. Dictators are garbage all over the world. Iraq was about the region. Arguing about it either way as if it sits alone ignores what is happening right now throughout the region. America is not on a mission to sanctify or pacify the world. America's mission has always ben to secure economic interests. The fact that we stand for democracy and liberal freedom for ourselves is what gives us that moral edge that masks true intentions. If the Middle East were not the basket case it is, Saddam's activity within his own borders would not have been an issue for us. It is precisely because he sat in the very heart of this Arab region that he eventually had to go. It's precisely because he couldn't be trusted to behave regionally on his won without our troops amassed in the "Holy Land" that he had to go. It's precisely because this region needed to get past the rule of the dictator and Saddam Hussein personified/codified the region's government identity that he had to go. It's precisely because of missions like UN containment mission over Iraq that gives the Bin Ladens their excuses for terrorism that he had to go.

Everything else is just a designed excuse to borrow the world's pathetic idea of "legitimacy" just to do what is tactically sound. "Democracy" has been dismissed off as merely rhetoric or an ideologues dream. This is wrong. With over 120 democracies created since 1900, democracy in the Middle East is the correct tactic and it wasn't going to happen with the epitome of the government theme sitting squarely and comfortably in the Middle East under UN protection.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom