• 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 .
DaveFagan said:
Don't forget to include in GWFirstMoron deaths those caused by DU exposure, long term.
Click to expand...

What about the long term impact of driving ones country into the stone age via genocide, starvation, invading neighbors and institutionalized rape, Dave?

That's what we're seeing today, Dave. That's what Iraq is trying to recover from. And, with the world's help, we're hoping that they'll make it and join the developed world.
 
By the way. The correct poll answer can not be lower than 115,000 because if you read the links, that is the lowest CONSERVATIVE estimate of deaths. This has been a test.
 
Middleground said:
There is no question Saddam was evil, and I don't think anyone is disputing that fact. So does that it make it all right that many Iraqis died because of the American invasion?
Click to expand...

Then you need to reread the thread, because Dave was claiming that Bush killed more Iraqis than Saddam by factors of power. That's completely disconnected from reality and must be addressed.

You'll excuse me if I address such disgustingly ignorant and agenda-driven propaganda.

So you don't continue to miss the statement I was addressing, I'll quote it:

DaveFagan said:
So he has the record for Iraqi kills by several orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...


So, MG, do you got a problem with me correcting that?

If so, why? Do you realize that for Bush to have killed more Iraqis by "several orders of magnitude", he would have had to kill hundreds of billions of Iraqis? That's how totally disconnected that statement is.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
What about the long term impact of driving ones country into the stone age via genocide, starvation, invading neighbors and institutionalized rape, Dave?

That's what we're seeing today, Dave. That's what Iraq is trying to recover from. And, with the world's help, we're hoping that they'll make it and join the developed world.
Click to expand...


Iraq is trying to recover from a war that we took to them. Saddam was no saint, but before the war Baghdad was considered a cosmopolitan city with education for women and a decent economy. We kill off a million or so Iraqis just to hep' em' out and for the sake o' bidness. Slide into the real world.
 
DaveFagan said:
Iraq is trying to recover from a war that we took to them. Saddam was no saint, but before the war Baghdad was considered a cosmopolitan city with education for women and a decent economy. We kill off a million or so Iraqis just to hep' em' out and for the sake o' bidness. Slide into the real world.
Click to expand...

That's fantasy, Dave. Saddam was under crushing sanctions for violating 17 chapter 7 unscrs. The country was entirely without social capital and in shambles. No one with half a brain would ever consider vacation in Iraq under Saddam. The country had been driven into the ground through genocide, starvation and the invasion of neighbors.

Pretending that Iraq was a decent place before the invasion is nonsense. How can you ignore genocide and institutionalized rape, Dave?
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
I think in their body count they choose to add in all the dead caused by the Islomo-extremists that continue to kill people. The rationale of course being that if Bush hadnt gone to war they wouldnt be killing Iraqis. And OK...you can even cede that point, but then you would HAVE to go to door number two which says yes...but if Bush hadnt gone to war with Iraq Saddam Hussein would still be in power and his own personal record of genocide is rather impressive as well. Better to just stick with the talking points about the eeeeevil George Bush killing Iraqis and be done with it.
Click to expand...

The problem with your rationale is that we don't go barging into every Middle Eastern dictator's house because of a genocide which doesn't really affect us. So why Saddam? What made him worse than Gaddafi? Mubarak? The Mullahs? Why is it that we decided to go to Iraq and not any other place where there is a dictatorship? Next door to us we have the Cubans, in the 80s we had the Salvadoreans, the Costa Ricans. So why is it we decided that Saddam's genocide was somehow worse than any of the genocides we have next door?
 
Hatuey said:
The problem with your rationale is that we don't go barging into every Middle Eastern dictator's house because of a genocide which doesn't really affect us. So why Saddam? What made him worse than Gaddafi? Mubarak? The Mullahs? Why is it that we decided to go to Iraq and not any other place where there is a dictatorship? Next door to us we have the Cubans, in the 80s we had the Salvadoreans, the Costa Ricans. So why is it we decided that Saddam's genocide was somehow worse than any of the genocides we have next door?
Click to expand...


There are several factors that established Iraq as a top priority.

1. The magnitude of the genocide and that he committed genocide twice.
2. The existence of natural resources capable of rapid development.
3. The violation of 17 chapter 7 unscrs.
4. Institutionalized rape.
5. His previous invasions of neighbors.
6. Fake WMD program.
7. Geography.

There are more reasons, but I hope that you might begin to understand context, priorities and how decisions are made. I'm sorry you were in the dark about this, without a clue as to why the US would choose Iraq over other countries in which to intervene. Perhaps now you've at least some idea.
 
DaveFagan said:
It certainly couldn't have anything to do with all those Iraqis living on somebody's OIL, or not? Let's see. Iraqis got sand. Iraqis got sand fleas. Iraqis got scorpions. Iraqis got OIL. I wonder if coinky - dink is operating subliminally here, or not?
Click to expand...

It is all about oil. Would we have cared if Iraq had invaded Kuwait in the first place if it weren't for oil? Certainly not as much as we (the coalition) did. You are a bit all over the board with your agenda. I thought the topic was the Iraqi civilian deaths and your assertion that they died because of the WMD claims.

Has my point be so persuasive that you have abandoned that and gone on to oil?
 
ecofarm said:
There are several factors that established Iraq as a top priority.

1. The magnitude of the genocide and that he committed genocide twice.
2. The existence of natural resources capable of rapid development.
3. The violation of 17 chapter 7 unscrs.
4. Institutionalized rape.
5. His previous invasions of neighbors.
6. Fake WMD program.
7. Geography.

There are more reasons, but I hope that you might begin to understand context, priorities and how decisions are made. I'm sorry you were in the dark about this, without a clue as to why the US would choose Iraq over other countries in which to intervene. Perhaps now you've at least some idea.
Click to expand...

1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 aren't unique to Iraq by any stretch of the imagination. Even adding the results of his genocides together, there have been genocides in Africa three times as large which barely received notice from the international community, let alone action.

Most of your examples incorporate the assumption that "the realities of power" justify intrusion in Iraq and not elsewhere, when your opponent's question suggested they did not. In that sense, your posts amount to two people asserting, "No it does not," and "Yes it does." Neither side bothered to just come out and explained why their belief was the correct one.
 
Last edited:
Morality Games said:
1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 aren't unique to Iraq.
Click to expand...

So? All those things together make Iraq the top choice. Come on, this isn't rocket science.

To see if you've grasped the concept of context and priorities in decision making, I'll give you a little quiz: Who's next on the list?


ps. Who else has 1. and 3. ? And, actually, Iraq's geography (7.) is, in fact, unique to Iraq (though, of course, geographic considerations are always part of the priority setting).
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
So? All those things together make Iraq the top choice. Come on, this isn't rocket science.

To see if you've grasped the concept of context and priorities in decision making, I'll give you a little quiz: Who's next on the list?


ps. Who else has 1. and 3. ? And, actually, Iraq's geography (7.) is, in fact, unique to Iraq (though, of course, geographic considerations are always part of the priority setting).
Click to expand...

I amended my post to point out that you argued, "the realities of power" justified intrusion into Iraq.

There's no reason to take such an assertion at face value.
 
Morality Games said:
I amended my post to point out that you argued, "the realities of power" justified intrusion into Iraq.

There's no reason to take such an assertion at face value.
Click to expand...

I don't get why you are confused. I was answering a specific question: ~"Why Iraq instead of other places?" This question leaves aside the question of whether one should be involved, and moves to choice. Thus, I provided some of the many factors as to why Iraq was obviously the top priority. Given that invasion is an option and the question is priorities, I cannot understand how anyone could still be wandering about in the dark regarding the decision to invade Iraq and not another country.
 
Last edited:
How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War?

Hatuey said:
The problem with your rationale is that we don't go barging into every Middle Eastern dictator's house because of a genocide which doesn't really affect us. So why Saddam? What made him worse than Gaddafi? Mubarak? The Mullahs? Why is it that we decided to go to Iraq and not any other place where there is a dictatorship? Next door to us we have the Cubans, in the 80s we had the Salvadoreans, the Costa Ricans. So why is it we decided that Saddam's genocide was somehow worse than any of the genocides we have next door?
Click to expand...

The difference was that none of those other people you cited have ignored 17 UN resolutions demanding an accounting of his WMD stockpiles, were regularly engaging in acts of genocide, and were supporting global terrorism.
 
ecofarm said:
I don't get why you are confused. I was answering a specific question: ~"Why Iraq instead of other places?" This question leaves aside the question of whether one should be involved, and moves to choice. Thus, I provided some of the many factors as to why Iraq is obviously the top priority. Given that invasion is an option and the question is priorities, I cannot understand how anyone could be still wandering about in the dark regarding the decision to invade Iraq and not another country.
Click to expand...

The "other places" dimension of that phrase was a rhetorical device to alert people of the idea that the true reasons of intruding into Iraq were vulgar, base, or otherwise ignoble -- the kinder way of putting that is, "the realities of power."

You ignored the rhetorical element and answered the question literally.

Which is acceptable, since nobody controls the terms in which you argue. However, the indirection of both arguments made them disappointing.
 
Morality Games said:
The "other places" dimension of that phrase was a rhetorical device to alert people of the idea that the true reasons of intruding into Iraq were vulgar, base, or otherwise ignoble -- the kinder way of putting that is, "the realities of power."

You ignored the rhetorical element and answered the question literally.

Which is acceptable, since nobody controls the terms in which you argue. However, the indirection of both arguments made them disappointing.
Click to expand...


If you want to change the subject now, fine. We can have that discussion. However, you cannot change the subject that I was specifically addressing. That would be taking my answer out of context and illegitimately applying it to a different argument.
 
ecofarm said:
If you want to change the subject now, fine. We can have that discussion. However, you cannot change the subject that I was specifically addressing. That would be taking my answer out of context and illegitimately applying it to a different argument.
Click to expand...

I wasn't changing the discussion, I was criticizing the way you two were carrying it out.
 
I'm often amused by the outrage of the left when it comes to wartime deaths. 334,000 AMERICAN babies were killed last year here at home by Planned Parenthood strictly out of convenience, and Obama, in a recent speech was heard to say "God bless Planned Parenthood and the work they do". The left does not actually value human life, only political rhetoric and power.
 
Morality Games said:
I wasn't changing the discussion, I was criticizing the way you two were carrying it out as unsatisfying.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you would have preferred a list of evil intentions. That was not the discussion I was engaged in. I was addressing a more rational question regarding priorities and not the "is the US an evil empire" question that you so desire to explore.

As I've noted, we can explore the "evil empire" argument if you would like. There's no need for you to live vicariously through my engagements with others on their terms. You can make your own terms and I will make available a new and unique response tailored to your specific concerns and needs.
 
VanceMack said:
The difference was that none of those other people you cited have ignored 17 UN resolutions demanding an accounting of his WMD stockpiles, were regularly engaging in acts of genocide, and were supporting global terrorism.
Click to expand...

None of those other people? Hmmm...

Study: Israel leads in ignoring Security Council resolutions - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

Israel leads the list. Since 1968, Israel has violated 32 resolutions that included condemnation or criticism of the governments' policies and actions. Turkey is in second place, with 24 violations since 1974, and Morocco is third with 17 resolutions it ignored.
Click to expand...

So there we have 3 examples of 3 countries who've violated the same if not nearly twice as many UN resolutions as Iraq, yet no invasion.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm sorry if you would have preferred a list of evil intentions. That was not the discussion I was engaged in. I was addressing a more rational question regarding priorities and not the "is the US an evil empire" question that you so desire to explore.

As I've noted, we can explore the "evil empire" argument if you would like. There's no need for you to live vicariously through my engagements with others on their terms. You can make your own terms and I will make available a new and unique response tailored to your specific concerns and needs.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. VanceMeck argued that Saddam needed to be removed from power because so-and-so reason (genocide), which Hatuey challenged by rhetorically asking why other people who committed genocides were not targeted. You posted a list of reasons and insulted him for not being aware of them. A very literal way to respond to a rhetorical question, since, among other things, you can't safely assume someone asking a rhetorical question is not also aware of the full circumstances behind the event that prefaces the question.

You certainly didn't need to furnish "a list of evil intentions." I don't necessarily disagree with any of your examples, since I haven't heard your interpretation of what they mean.
 
Morality Games said:
That's not the point. VanceMeck argued that Saddam needed to be removed from power because so-and-so reason (genocide), which Hatuey challenged by rhetorically asking why other people who committed genocides were not targeted. You posted a list of reasons and insulted him for not being aware of them. A very literal way to respond to a rhetorical question, since, among other things, you can't safely assume someone asking a rhetorical question is not also aware of the full circumstances behind the event that prefaces the question.

You certainly didn't need to furnish "a list of evil intentions." I don't necessarily disagree with any of your examples, since I haven't heard your interpretation of what they mean.
Click to expand...

So you understand context and priorities in decision making?

Then what's the problem?
 
DaveFagan said:
It certainly couldn't have anything to do with all those Iraqis living on somebody's OIL, or not? Let's see. Iraqis got sand. Iraqis got sand fleas. Iraqis got scorpions. Iraqis got OIL. I wonder if coinky - dink is operating subliminally here, or not?
Click to expand...

If oil was our only concern, why don't we just take Mexico's? Or Venezuela's. Much shorter distance for our Imperialistic storm troopers to travel.

As usual, you choose the simplistic, anti-American approach to this situation as you do to almost everything else.
 
ecofarm said:
Hundreds of thousands, via genocide alone. Starvation for hundreds of thousands more. Invading Iran cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Many hundreds of thousands (more than a million), over an about 20 year period, through genocide, starvation and the invasion of neighbors alone. This does not (as your 1 million stat does) include natural deaths and routine accidents. If we include non-direct murder, natural events and accidents, then Saddam's number approaches 10 million.

What kind of ignorance allows for Bush to be responsible for more Iraqi deaths than the 20 year genocidal dictator?
Click to expand...

The kind of ignorance fed by a mentality that essentially takes the position that whatever bad happens in the world, it is the fault of Capitalism generally and the U.S. specifically.
 
ecofarm said:
So you understand context and priorities in decision making?

Then what's the problem?
Click to expand...

The indirection, as stated.

As far as the "priorities" part of your argument goes, my problem is that you reduced the issue of invading Iraq to an arithmetical one, where all the values get listed and then the values add up to x -- in this case, x is "America invades Iraq ahead of other countries."

As you argued it, Hatuey was foolish because he wasn't aware of these values or how they added up (even though he was being rhetorical). Even assuming that such an "arithmetical" conclusion is possible, its not obvious that the values you listed are right ones or that they add up correctly to "America invades Iraq ahead of other countries" because they involved no reasoning anyone else could see.

Suggesting someone else is incompetent because they didn't add up something you yourself haven't shown to even be plausible (let alone true) is premature.
 
Last edited:
DaveFagan said:
It certainly couldn't have anything to do with all those Iraqis living on somebody's OIL, or not? Let's see. Iraqis got sand. Iraqis got sand fleas. Iraqis got scorpions. Iraqis got OIL. I wonder if coinky - dink is operating subliminally here, or not?
Click to expand...

For one thing, we only get a small portion of our oil from the ME.

gr-oilprod-300.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom