How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War?[W:496]

ecofarm said:

One need not believe in the fantasy of altruism to appreciate the acts of others.

Click to expand...

But if the act of that person is for selfish reasons why does it need to be revered?

calamity said:

Someone up there drank all the Kool Aide.

Here's the link that I added by the edit coming in after you quoted the post. The only rape rooms were the ones we set up.
Bush, "rape rooms," and the Iraq prison scandal. - Slate Magazine

Click to expand...

I'm glad you see me as 'up there', but spare me the lunatic fringe version of history.

ecofarm said:

Arguments about sanctions in the 90's (a debate in and of itself) do not absolve Saddam of directly and intentionally starving 400k children in the years just prior to the invasion.

Stop distracting and accept reality. When you've accepted reality, adjust your crystal ball.

Click to expand...

I did say it absolved him. Again, stay within the scope if what I've actually claimed.


The Level of Killing

In considering the criteria that would justify humanitarian intervention, the most important, as noted, is the level of killing: was genocide or comparable mass slaughter underway or imminent? Brutal as Saddam Hussein's reign had been, the scope of the Iraqi government's killing in March 2003 was not of the exceptional and dire magnitude that would justify humanitarian intervention. We have no illusions about Saddam Hussein's vicious inhumanity. Having devoted extensive time and effort to documenting his atrocities, we estimate that in the last twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or "disappeared" some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more. In addition, one must consider such abuses as Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers. However, by the time of the March 2003 invasion, Saddam Hussein's killing had ebbed.

(Snip)


Conclusion

In sum, the invasion of Iraq failed to meet the test for a humanitarian intervention. Most important, the killing in Iraq at the time was not of the exceptional nature that would justify such intervention. In addition, intervention was not the last reasonable option to stop Iraqi atrocities. Intervention was not motivated primarily by humanitarian concerns. It was not conducted in a way that maximized compliance with international humanitarian law. It was not approved by the Security Council. And while at the time it was launched it was reasonable to believe that the Iraqi people would be better off, it was not designed or carried out with the needs of Iraqis foremost in mind.




War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention | Human Rights Watch

ecofarm said:

spare me the lunatic fringe version of history.

Click to expand...

Abuse by the US govt is well documented. Calling it "fringe" does not make it fiction.

ecofarm said:

No, Abu Graib was a crime and prosecuted as such. Unfortunately, crime occurs in the civilian world as well as in the military. The difference between us and Saddam is that we treated such as a crime and not state policy.

Click to expand...

I don't remember GWBush, the first torturer being prosecuted for OKing torture by the military. I just remember the crap rolls downhill to England and Graner because their Commander in Chief didn't have cojones to admit it was under Presidential orders. It was a "War of Choice." GWBush's, the first moron's, choice.

Geoist said:

But if the act of that person is for selfish reasons why does it need to be revered?

Click to expand...

We should appreciate those who serve us, whatever an individual's reasoning may be. It's not for me to judge you; yet, I can appreciate support. For example, we tip a waiter even though it is his job to do what he did. It seems you remain stuck in a sort of false dichotomy of absolutism. Having dispelled the notion of altruism, you now seem to believe that people should not appreciate anything. Shake off the absolutism.

Women were better off under Saddam...and so too were the children. I'm stunned that there are people here who still buy the BS they were sold in 2003. Jesus ****ing Christ. There is ample resource out there to get real information. Go get it. Quit being stupid ignorant drones.

Contrary to popular imagination, Iraqi women enjoyed far more freedom under Saddam Hussein’s secular Ba’athist government than women in other Middle Eastern countries. In fact, equal rights for women were enshrined in Iraq’s Constitution in 1970, including the right to vote, run for political office, access education and own property. Today, these rights are all but absent under the U.S.-backed government of Nouri al-Maliki.

...The U.S.-led invasion in 2003 exacerbated the desperation of Iraqi women and girls to unprecedented levels. It left them vulnerable to an underground sex industry and subject to severe methods of punishment by an increasingly religious post-invasion government.

A comprehensive examination into sex trafficking by the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI) explains, “Ousting the government and all systems of security left Iraqi cities vulnerable in the following months to gangs of men who kidnapped women and girls and assaulted them sexually.”

Many of the kidnapped were sold to nearby countries, as demonstrated in 2004 when houses used to “store” girls before they were purchased were uncovered. Though it is difficult to determine exactly how many women have been victims of sex trafficking, OWFI estimates that in the first seven years after the invasion, 4,000 Iraqi women and girls went missing, twenty percent of whom were under the age of 18.
Muftah » Was Life for Iraqi Women Better Under Saddam?

Click to expand...

ecofarm said:

I'm glad you see me as 'up there', but spare me the lunatic fringe version of history.

Click to expand...

What's lunacy is what you're defending. You really think we did right by Iraq?

Geoist said:

Abuse by the US govt is well documented. Calling it "fringe" does not make it fiction.

Click to expand...

Abu Graib was a crime and prosecuted as such. Believing otherwise is to believe in conspiracy theory of a most ridiculous sort.

calamity said:

What's lunacy is what you're defending. You really think we did right by Iraq?

Click to expand...

Why are you changing the subject? Let me guess... you can't provide any real evidence whatsoever that the crime occurring at Abu Graib was ordered from above? Typical conspiracy theory tactic... when shown to be full of crap, divert and change subject.

calamity said:

Women were better off under Saddam...and so too were the children. I'm stunned that there are people here who still buy the BS they were sold in 2003. Jesus ****ing Christ. There is ample resource out there to get real information. Go get it. Quit being stupid ignorant drones.

Click to expand...

mufta.org You can't be serious.

Saddam institutionalized rape. Female genital mutilation was legal. Honor killings were legal. Women were pets, at best. HS girls were kidnapped by regime men and used in rape palaces as a matter of state policy.

Pretending that any redeeming stats can be garnered from the black hole of death and torture created by Saddam is the height of audacity.

ecofarm said:

Why are you changing the subject? Let me guess... you can't provide any real evidence whatsoever that the crime occurring at Abu Graib was ordered from above? Typical conspiracy theory tactic... when shown to be full of crap, divert and change subject.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. It's all there...if you have the balls to see it.
Abu Ghraib: Accountability - SourceWatch

Boo Radley said:

I did say it absolved him. Again, stay within the scope if what I've actually claimed.

Click to expand...

Your claims are BS:

1. That Saddam did not kill hundreds of thousands of children, on purpose, just prior to the war.
2. That Saddam did not kill in excess of 1m Iraqis, just according to the big stuff, during his dictatorship.
3. That Saddam therefore killed less than the coalition.
4. That Iraq would have been all happiness and joy if not for the invasion.

All BS.

War in Iraq: Not a Humanitarian Intervention | Human Rights Watch

Click to expand...

That's a 2004 article from notorious pillow biters.

ecofarm said:

mufta.org You can't be serious.

Saddam institutionalized rape. Female genital mutilation was legal. Honor killings were legal. Women were pets, at best. HS girls were kidnapped by regime men and used in rape palaces as a matter of state policy.

Pretending that any redeeming stats can be garnered from the black hole of death and torture created by Saddam is the height of audacity.

Click to expand...

You believe all that? Sheesh.

Baathist Iraq was secular. You're describing our ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba'athist_Iraq

The Ba'ath Party, which was secular in nature, harshly repressed the protests. Another policy change was Iraq's foreign policy towards Iran, a Shia Muslim country. Deteriorating relations eventually led to the Iran–Iraq War, which started in 1980 when Iraq launched a full-scale invasion of Iran. Following the 1979 Iranian revolution, the Iraqis believed the Iranians to be weak, and thus an easy target for their military. This notion proved to be incorrect, and the war lasted for eight years. Iraq's economy deteriorated during the war, and the country became dependent on foreign donations to fund their war effort. The war ended in a stalemate when a ceasefire was reached in 1988, which resulted in a status quo ante bellum.

When the war ended, Iraq found itself in the midst of an economic depression, owed millions of dollars to foreign countries, and was unable to repay its creditors.

Click to expand...

That's why he invaded Kuwait. Debts.

Geoist said:

But if the act of that person is for selfish reasons why does it need to be revered?

Click to expand...

It's not purely selfish.

Again, dude... RIP FREE OF THE ABSOLUTISM!

It's got ya, bad!

ecofarm said:

We should appreciate those who serve us, whatever an individual's reasoning may be. It's not for me to judge you; yet, I can appreciate support. For example, we tip a waiter even though it is his job to do what he did. It seems you remain stuck in a sort of false dichotomy of absolutism. Having dispelled the notion of altruism, you now seem to believe that people should not appreciate anything. Shake off the absolutism.

Click to expand...

I never said we should never appreciate anything. For example, I appreciate the works of Ernest Hemingway. However, I think there is a difference between appreciating an accomplishment, and revering as 'altruistic' certain positions as we do with military service. It is practically to the point of idolatry.

ecofarm said:

It's not purely selfish.

Click to expand...

Example?

Geoist said:

Example?

Click to expand...

We don't need an example! We just need you to abandon absolutism. Just because there is no absolute selflessness does not mean there is no desire to help others. Why can you not leave absolutism behind? Why the need to swing from one absolute to another?

Geoist said:

I never said we should never appreciate anything. For example, I appreciate the works of Ernest Hemingway. However, I think there is a difference between appreciating an accomplishment, and revering as 'altruistic' certain positions as we do with military service. It is practically to the point of idolatry.

Click to expand...

Look

If I drop my keys and you pick them up for me, I will thank you. Not because I think you did it out of altruism but just because I appreciate you picking up the keys.

ecofarm said:

We don't need an example! We just need you to abandon absolutism. Just because there is no absolute selflessness does not mean there is no desire to help others. Why can you not leave absolutism behind? Why the need to swing from one absolute to another?

Click to expand...

So you think an action can be both selfish and selfless (altruistic). And yet, you said you do not believe in altruism. Which is it?

Geoist said:

So you think an action can be both selfish and selfless (altruistic). And yet, you said you do not believe in altruism. Which is it?

Click to expand...

I don't believe in altruism, though things may be altruistic (meaning having such qualities).

It's really not so much to grasp. Just abandon absolutism.

ecofarm said:

Look

If I drop my keys and you pick them up for me, I will thank you. Not because I think you did it out of altruism but just because I appreciate you picking up the keys.

Click to expand...

When you compare saying "thanks" for returning keys to the level of idolatry that goes on for the military then you are comparing apples to oranges.

ecofarm said:

I don't believe in altruism, though things may be altruistic.

It's really not so much to grasp.

Click to expand...

Sorry I don't have your level of understanding, but this makes no sense whatsoever. Altruistic is simply an adjective of altruism.

Geoist said:

Sorry I don't have your level of understanding, but this makes no sense whatsoever. Altruistic is simply an adjective of altruism.

Click to expand...

Ok, let's try this:

I don't believe in communism, but things can be communistic. Have you ever seen communism? I haven't. Though there are things (particularly, philosophy and perhaps even policy) that can be considered to have communist qualities.

Geoist said:

When you compare saying "thanks" for returning keys to the level of idolatry that goes on for the military then you are comparing apples to oranges.

Click to expand...

Idolatry is the worship of an object. What object is being worshiped when one thanks another for their service (whatever service that may be)?

There's nothing about object worship in thanking a teacher, a doctor, a cop, a firefighter or a soldier for their service to the community. It doesn't mean that anyone worships schools, hospitals, police stations, fire stations or the military.