• 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 .
MSgt said:
You see, this is what I mean by the default protestor....



The failure was in 1991. 2003 was inevitable.



"They" said we were dictator supporters. What did we show "them" in 2003? What have we shown them since during the Arab Spring and even with Syria? "They" say a lot about America. It's what "they" do. It's the price we pay for being history's victor playing their rules while all others fell to the side. People think far less negative about Iraq these days, what with Muslims demonstrating how they behave without outside forces removing their dictators. By the way, we have been what "they" say we are ever since we agreed to cross the Atlantic to fight Germans. So what? Our goal should be more than that and to live up to our preach. Of course, when the Syrian rebels turn and slaughter "inferior" tribes "they" will say more. Incidentally, "they" were also saying a lot when we were riding the fence in regards to Libya. Don't worry about what the world's losers have to say about America. Until America carves the Third World up into a disastrous border mess, starts a couple World Wars, and starts a Cold War, "they" can't say much.



Iran's been economically crippled for some time and its leaders used Iraq to oppress its people further, especially when they riot at elections. The nuclear program isn't new and has been around since the Shah. This too was inevitable.



Al-Queda is a crippled mess, afraid to show its head and relies on the many others who do in their name simply to be noticed. They have merely scooped up from the region what the mess in Iraq revealed. Or do you think the Sunni traveled to Iraq to slaughter Shia because they admired Saddam Hussein? Like I stated before, the more the world changes the more this civilization will produce radicals. And as they realize that Islam has failed as an organizing tool they will simply be what they were raised to be. Let them lash out regionally, die for Allah and Al-Queda. Future generations that grow up in democracies where they have healthy outlets to voice opposition will seek the "sword" far less than their recent ancestors. We get crazies even in our Democracy. The trick is to create an environment that doesn't breed violent extremist organizations.




Nothing after any war changes the number of dead or the money spent. We aren't getting anybody back from Afghanistan. We aren't getting anybody back from Beirut. From Vietnam. From Korea. From World Wars. Complaining about this for wars we don't approve of is selective. "Nothing that happens now" is a protestors chant to cling to his protests no matter what. It's this attitude that brands the dead as being in vain.
Click to expand...

Not default, but what I believe to be true.

1991 may not have been a success, but Chalibi played a role in that as well, making Bush's alliance with him even more mind boggling. But Bush sr. Knew better than to go into Iraq to stay. He knew he need some in power, and to create a vacuum. Bush sr rarely gets the credit he deserves.

No matter Iran's economic status, a friendly Iraq helps them. And they do have some influence (not control) in Iraq.

Nor is al Qaeda destroyed. They weren't large to begin with. They didn't send an army to hit the towers. But they got serious training in Iraq. Grew their numbers. Gained in status with our help. And did more to us then they ever could had we not invaded.

And no one suggests we can bring anyone back. But to prevent future mistakes, we must recognize the problem. Reckless spending of human lives should be harder to do.
 
MSgt said:
Very true. I would concede that no expert could safely assume where things have been retarded or sped up. But some things are generally certain....

- The House of Saud was never going to release a little power to low level elections prior to the pressure it got emanating from Iraqi elections.

- If we can agree that radicals around the region were watching and thusly traveled to disrupt Iraqi democracy while killing Shia, then we should assume that moderates and reformers were also watching and emerged in their own countries.

- The reason neighboring countries to Iraq refused to seal their borders was that a Democratic Iraq is bad for Dictator business.

- The Arab Spring was not going to happen prior to Iraq.





With so much of this region rising up against their dictators and demanding Democracy I don't understand this.
Click to expand...

Because it s not related to Iraq. And the outcomes may be worse than what was there.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not default, but what I believe to be true.

1991 may not have been a success, but Chalibi played a role in that as well, making Bush's alliance with him even more mind boggling. But Bush sr. Knew better than to go into Iraq to stay. He knew he need some in power, and to create a vacuum. Bush sr rarely gets the credit he deserves.
Click to expand...

Using a dictator to fill a vacuum was Cold War tactics and sufficed because those that were empowered to make decisions lacked vision and understanding of where they were in history. Instead of doing exactly what we did with World War II, they stopped short of the dictator, took the easy way out, and encouraged the people to rise up only to be slaughtered while we threw ourselves a parade for victory. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest were wrong in 1991 and they helped to create the UN mission that would later give Osama Bin Laden excuses as Iraqis starved and we escalated troop strengths in the holy land to contain him.


Boo Radley said:
No matter Iran's economic status, a friendly Iraq helps them. And they do have some influence (not control) in Iraq.
Click to expand...

And so it should. All of those nations have to trade and get along. This doesn't mean that Iran has influence over anything in regards to Iraq policy. Both countries are more nationalistic than you think.

Boo Radley said:
Nor is al Qaeda destroyed.
Click to expand...

Is that the goal? Because we still have Nazis running around here and there too. This is generational. Always has been. You don't spend a century shaking this region up and hope to fix it over night. The goal is not to destroy terrorism. It is to make it more manageable just like it is everywhere else in the world.

But what really did they do to us? The Stock Market recovered within days. Some people died for which we now know Osama Bin Laden got to see his beloved Islamic region erupt into chants for democracy before he died. Contrary to what protestors like to state, he did not get what he wanted. He did not see America react militarily so that the region could rise up and re-create Islam in a Caliphate's image. He failed and got the opposite and if he could live a hundred years perhaps he would see a very different Middle East where his kind can't thrive and organize.


Boo Radley said:
Reckless spending of human lives should be harder to do.
Click to expand...
Well that's true.
 
Boo Radley said:
As this thread is about Iraq, aren't you the one diverting? And can you point to anywhere that I gave support for arming the rebels?
Click to expand...

Point is you're whining about something that's already done. Why aren't you complaining about the current happenings in the Middle East?
 
Boo Radley said:
Because it s not related to Iraq. And the outcomes may be worse than what was there.
Click to expand...

But it is related to Iraq. If one is going to say that our invasion in Iraq created radicals and they traveled to Iraq to fight then one must also acknowledge that moderates also have television sets and were watching Iraqi developments. Do you actually think that the first time that Arabs voted in Arab history went unnoticed by the reformers? Two months after their first election without support, a Tunisian man sets himself on fire over oppression and sparks the Arab Spring and you think they are oblivious from each other?

I used to state that democracy in the region starts with Iraq and people would tell me no way. Now that it is occurring here and there I am told that they aren't related by those same people? C'mon. At least give the sequence of events its credibility. The only way they are not related is that the U.S. didn't have to send in the Marines. Muslims elsewhere finally did for themselves what Iraqis are already doing on their television sets.
 
ChrisL said:
Point is you're whining about something that's already done. Why aren't you complaining about the current happenings in the Middle East?
Click to expand...

He may be discussing Syria on a thread that isn't about Iraqi death tolls. That being the bigger point makes your point pointless.
 
ChrisL said:
Point is you're whining about something that's already done. Why aren't you complaining about the current happenings in the Middle East?
Click to expand...

That is the crux of his complaint. It looks like we are going to do the same thing again, because the propaganda wizards have convinced people like yourself that it is OK to kill wholesale as long as the buzzwords work. You know freedom, democracy, human rights, and all the other mantras that have been proven to be horse manure. Our actions show over 100,000 dead in Iraq. No big deal, "they hate us for our freedoms."(GWBush, the first liar)
 
MSgt said:
He may be discussing Syria on a thread that isn't about Iraqi death tolls. That being the bigger point makes your point pointless.
Click to expand...

No, what's pointless is complaining about a war that ended a year a half ago, being negative and having no solutions to any of the problems.
 
ChrisL said:
No, what's pointless is complaining about a war that ended a year a half ago, being negative and having no solutions to any of the problems.
Click to expand...

Well that would be a point, but drilling him for why he isn't discussing Syria on this Thread seems pointless.
 
DaveFagan said:
That is the crux of his complaint. It looks like we are going to do the same thing again, because the propaganda wizards have convinced people like yourself that it is OK to kill wholesale as long as the buzzwords work. You know freedom, democracy, human rights, and all the other mantras that have been proven to be horse manure. Our actions show over 100,000 dead in Iraq. No big deal, "they hate us for our freedoms."(GWBush, the first liar)
Click to expand...

Well, I'm pretty sure we aren't going to invade Syria. There's no tactical advantage for getting intimately involved. And I'm pretty sure that if you were Islamic you would strap a bomb to your chest. Relax fella.
 
MSgt said:
Well that would be a point, but drilling him for why he isn't discussing Syria on this Thread seems pointless.
Click to expand...

I've been on the Syria threads, and there have been very FEW liberals participating, and I don't believe Boo is one of them. It shows his blind partisanship.
 
MSgt said:
Using a dictator to fill a vacuum was Cold War tactics and sufficed because those that were empowered to make decisions lacked vision and understanding of where they were in history. Instead of doing exactly what we did with World War II, they stopped short of the dictator, took the easy way out, and encouraged the people to rise up only to be slaughtered while we threw ourselves a parade for victory. Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest were wrong in 1991 and they helped to create the UN mission that would later give Osama Bin Laden excuses as Iraqis starved and we escalated troop strengths in the holy land to contain him.




And so it should. All of those nations have to trade and get along. This doesn't mean that Iran has influence over anything in regards to Iraq policy. Both countries are more nationalistic than you think.



Is that the goal? Because we still have Nazis running around here and there too. This is generational. Always has been. You don't spend a century shaking this region up and hope to fix it over night. The goal is not to destroy terrorism. It is to make it more manageable just like it is everywhere else in the world.

But what really did they do to us? The Stock Market recovered within days. Some people died for which we now know Osama Bin Laden got to see his beloved Islamic region erupt into chants for democracy before he died. Contrary to what protestors like to state, he did not get what he wanted. He did not see America react militarily so that the region could rise up and re-create Islam in a Caliphate's image. He failed and got the opposite and if he could live a hundred years perhaps he would see a very different Middle East where his kind can't thrive and organize.


Well that's true.
Click to expand...

Didn't say anything about a dictator.

I'm not sure what the goal is concerning Iraq. But the Iraq invasion didn't hurt al Qaeda, that's the point.
 
ChrisL said:
Point is you're whining about something that's already done. Why aren't you complaining about the current happenings in the Middle East?
Click to expand...

I'm answering a question here. Oddly, few are really defending Obama, other than to say it isn't quite equal to Bush, Obama having not invaded another country on a pretext.
 
MSgt said:
But it is related to Iraq. If one is going to say that our invasion in Iraq created radicals and they traveled to Iraq to fight then one must also acknowledge that moderates also have television sets and were watching Iraqi developments. Do you actually think that the first time that Arabs voted in Arab history went unnoticed by the reformers? Two months after their first election without support, a Tunisian man sets himself on fire over oppression and sparks the Arab Spring and you think they are oblivious from each other?

I used to state that democracy in the region starts with Iraq and people would tell me no way. Now that it is occurring here and there I am told that they aren't related by those same people? C'mon. At least give the sequence of events its credibility. The only way they are not related is that the U.S. didn't have to send in the Marines. Muslims elsewhere finally did for themselves what Iraqis are already doing on their television sets.
Click to expand...

Moderates by in large were not in favor of our actions in Iraq. Iraq slowed it down, and there are radicals making hay in this as well. There is no certainty any of these places will turn out better. I think you're misreading what is happening.
 
ChrisL said:
I've been on the Syria threads, and there have been very FEW liberals participating, and I don't believe Boo is one of them. It shows his blind partisanship.
Click to expand...

Well you aren't going to find a lot of Liberals who will say too much about Obama. Think of their high horse six years ago when they voted for "Hope and Change" only to slowly discover that there was no change. Arguments against Bush in regards to "sovereignty" got silenced as Obama escalated UAV strikes into Pakistan and later into Yemen. Arguments against Bush about closing GITMO got silenced as Liberals see thriving hunger strikes in GITMO six years later. Arguments against Bush about transparency got silenced as Obama proved to be worse than Bush and defends the latest NSA scandal of secrecy. Arguments against Bush about lifting whistleblowers to hero status got silenced as the Obama administration began to mount more investigations into leaks and now chases a whistleblower around the world.

Gays in the military was already on the way because of the civil suit and Iraqi pullout was already scheduled under Bush. There's Universal Health Care, but reports show that this is an absolute mess on every level. Liberals have had a long ways to fall from six years ago when they were riding high on "Hope and Change." So you won't find many of them opinionated as they were under Bush. In fact, Obama has performed well enough in terms of foreign policy that even I voted for him last year. My record....Bush, Bush, McCain, Obama. People should vote for the man that can deal with the world, not the man with the utopian bull ****.
 
ChrisL said:
I've been on the Syria threads, and there have been very FEW liberals participating, and I don't believe Boo is one of them. It shows his blind partisanship.
Click to expand...

You have to have someone to disagree with. You miss the point. Singing to the choir has rarely appealed to me.
 
MSgt said:
Well you aren't going to find a lot of Liberals who will say too much about Obama. Think of their high horse six years ago when they voted for "Hope and Change" only to slowly discover that there was no change. Arguments against Bush in regards to "sovereignty" got silenced as Obama escalated UAV strikes into Pakistan and later into Yemen. Arguments against Bush about closing GITMO got silenced as Liberals see thriving hunger strikes in GITMO six years later. Arguments against Bush about transparency got silenced as Obama proved to be worse than Bush and defends the latest NSA scandal of secrecy. Arguments against Bush about lifting whistleblowers to hero status got silenced as the Obama administration began to mount more investigations into leaks and now chases a whistleblower around the world.

Gays in the military was already on the way because of the civil suit and Iraqi pullout was already scheduled under Bush. There's Universal Health Care, but reports show that this is an absolute mess on every level. Liberals have had a long ways to fall from six years ago when they were riding high on "Hope and Change." So you won't find many of them opinionated as they were under Bush. In fact, Obama has performed well enough in terms of foreign policy that even I voted for him last year. My record....Bush, Bush, McCain, Obama. People should vote for the man that can deal with the world, not the man with the utopian bull ****.
Click to expand...

We don't have universal healthcare. Just saying. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
Didn't say anything about a dictator.

I'm not sure what the goal is concerning Iraq. But the Iraq invasion didn't hurt al Qaeda, that's the point.
Click to expand...

Oh. I thought you meant that it helped them. No. It didn't hurt them. But if you look at Al-Queda as merely a symptom of a larger disease then Iraq is a piece of the pie as is Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, etc. Say Al-Queda didn't do 9/11. There are hundreds of organizations like this that only need financial backing. We can deal with them as they show threat or we can deal with the failing civilization that breeds them and get this problem managed. A civilization, mind you, that we do have some responsibility towards making. Europeans have more. But most reside within the Muslims themselves and their twisted un-reformed religion.
 
MSgt said:
Well you aren't going to find a lot of Liberals who will say too much about Obama. Think of their high horse six years ago when they voted for "Hope and Change" only to slowly discover that there was no change. Arguments against Bush in regards to "sovereignty" got silenced as Obama escalated UAV strikes into Pakistan and later into Yemen. Arguments against Bush about closing GITMO got silenced as Liberals see thriving hunger strikes in GITMO six years later. Arguments against Bush about transparency got silenced as Obama proved to be worse than Bush and defends the latest NSA scandal of secrecy. Arguments against Bush about lifting whistleblowers to hero status got silenced as the Obama administration began to mount more investigations into leaks and now chases a whistleblower around the world.

Gays in the military was already on the way because of the civil suit and Iraqi pullout was already scheduled under Bush. There's Universal Health Care, but reports show that this is an absolute mess on every level. Liberals have had a long ways to fall from six years ago when they were riding high on "Hope and Change." So you won't find many of them opinionated as they were under Bush. In fact, Obama has performed well enough in terms of foreign policy that even I voted for him last year. My record....Bush, Bush, McCain, Obama. People should vote for the man that can deal with the world, not the man with the utopian bull ****.
Click to expand...

I agree with just about everything here except what I put in bold. I did not vote for Obama and I don't think his foreign policies are so wonderful either. I'm especially bothered about what's happening with Syria right now.
 
Boo Radley said:
You have to have someone to disagree with. You miss the point. Singing to the choir has rarely appealed to me.
Click to expand...

Isn't that "preaching" to the choir?

And I think you miss the point in that you continue on in this thread about a war that's been over for quite a while, complaining about a president who hasn't been the president for about 5 years now, while you and others have had virtually nothing to say about Syria which is a CURRENT issue and is quite a conundrum for us.
 
Boo Radley said:
Moderates by in large were not in favor of our actions in Iraq. Iraq slowed it down, and there are radicals making hay in this as well. There is no certainty any of these places will turn out better. I think you're misreading what is happening.
Click to expand...

Could be, but I doubt it. There is certainty that all of them will turn out better, because the laws of human nature dictate that the Middle East can do what humans in every other single region has done. There is no reason to assume that Democracy can and does work for virtually every single culture on Earth, but it simply cannot work for Muslims in the Middle East. It's this fear of instability that kept the Middle East imprisoned under dictators. The same fear locked down Iraq in 1991. And it is the same fear Republicans spew today in regards to the Arab Spring under Obama. Praise instability. Let them rise up. Let them declare their loyalties to tribe. Let them slaughter. Let them reshape their states. Let them do exactly what the rest of the world was allowed to do.

Moderates were not in favor of war with Iraq. That had no consequence. What they watched were Iraqi votes after. Complaining about the carnage as they watched Muslims slaughter Muslims is a culture embarrassment. The Shia rose up on their own before at our bequest. They were slaughtered. Therefore, with or without us in Iraq, those local tribes have murder on the brain. hat's what happens when you spend generations being oppressed by another. It comes out in the end.
 
ChrisL said:
And I think you miss the point in that you continue on in this thread about a war that's been over for quite a while, complaining about a president who hasn't been the president for about 5 years now, while you and others have had virtually nothing to say about Syria which is a CURRENT issue and is quite a conundrum for us.
Click to expand...

It's not "DebateCurrentPolitics.com" :D

We demonize the past when the future (of a political position) dries up.
 
MSgt said:
Oh. I thought you meant that it helped them. No. It didn't hurt them. But if you look at Al-Queda as merely a symptom of a larger disease then Iraq is a piece of the pie as is Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, etc. Say Al-Queda didn't do 9/11. There are hundreds of organizations like this that only need financial backing. We can deal with them as they show threat or we can deal with the failing civilization that breeds them and get this problem managed. A civilization, mind you, that we do have some responsibility towards making. Europeans have more. But most reside within the Muslims themselves and their twisted un-reformed religion.
Click to expand...

It did help them in these ways:

1) first and foremost gave them a rallying call that did increase membership. We elevated the status if a relatively small group. And gave them a place to focus on us.

2) gave a training ground that they would not have had otherwise. They learned a lot thy can use later on.

3) gave real propaganda they could use. Even gave credence to prior OBL claims.
 
ecofarm said:
It's not "DebateCurrentPolitics.com" :D

We demonize the past when the future (of a political position) dries up.
Click to expand...

It's futile. Instead of worrying about what's happening now and what our current president is doing, complain about a guy who hasn't been the president in 4 years ago, and conveniently leave out the role of the current president has played in that, or to continually excuse him by blaming the "other guy" doesn't make any sense to me. :shrug:
 
ChrisL said:
Isn't that "preaching" to the choir?

And I think you miss the point in that you continue on in this thread about a war that's been over for quite a while, complaining about a president who hasn't been the president for about 5 years now, while you and others have had virtually nothing to say about Syria which is a CURRENT issue and is quite a conundrum for us.
Click to expand...

No, I am speaking with someone who disagrees with me. And on topic here on this thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom