• 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 .
ecofarm said:
It's a pathetic attempt to legitimize the BS 1 million stat.

Obviously, the 50k-100k is the most honest answer - the closest to reality.
Click to expand...

I still contend that it doesn't matter, but I don't want people to confuse that with saying their lives didn't matter, I'm not. But the fact that Iraqis died has no bearing on anything.
 
ecofarm said:
Is this coming from the same person who thinks that diplomacy and not war is the answer to world development?
Click to expand...

You can have diplomacy without foreign aid and alliances. :roll:



Tell ya what, I'll explain a bit. You see, when a country "plays ball" with the US, that means we have diplomatic and economic ties. With those ties, the West is provided an in-road, if you will, towards the liberalization of those countries. Of course, we expect most countries to liberalize slowly, as we prod them along with the various tools in the diplomatic toolbox. Now, countries that are not willing to "play ball" with the West must be dealt with in other ways (sanctions, etc).
Click to expand...

Iraq was much further along than most ME countries when it came to liberalization. Our invasion of Iraq had NOTHING to do with how undemocratic it was.



It is not only absolutism, but gravely ignorant absolutism. To pretend that every country should be treated exactly the same, as if any two countries are exactly the same, is a most unfortunate and, frankly, blind method of diplomacy.
Click to expand...

Did I say we should be invading every country that violates human rights? You base your argument on invading Iraq solely on human rights abuses. Yet, you are perfectly fine with giving taxpayer dollars to countries that have also abused human rights. That is outright hypocrisy.

ps. I don't believe in altruism. I do what I do because it helps me sleep better.
Click to expand...

What is altruism? The concern over the welfare of others.
 
VanceMack said:
Logic: If you are going to **** your pants over the one, make sure you have plenty of diapers.
Click to expand...

I don't think Dave nor anyone else on this thread said there isn't plenty blame to go around.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
I still contend that it doesn't matter, but I don't want people to confuse that with saying their lives didn't matter, I'm not. But the fact that Iraqis died has no bearing on anything.
Click to expand...

Whether it was one life lost or a billion, it was an unjustified war.
 
DaveFagan said:
We don't steal the OIL outright. It is now in the Western Centralized Distribution Network for Energy and being traded in US Dollars. Many US energy corporations are now profiting handsomely from the spoils of war and actually from selling the gov't the energy to fight the war and armaments suppliers have profited handsomely as well. You don't think this war was about liberty and justice, or do you? War is good business, and business is good. And only a million or so dead.
Click to expand...

The original name of the operation was Operation Iraqi Liberation.... but then they thought about it and decided you can't have an acronym that states the obvious....


This is one of the better things I have seen on the body count:

The Iraq War: Ten Years in Ten Numbers - By Neta C. Crawford | The Middle East Channel

...and, yes, it was a Bush elective war. It is on his record... for those that think you can whine away Bush's miserable record arguing that it is something we all should forget because Obama has his own problems...
 
Geoist said:
I don't think Dave nor anyone else on this thread said there isn't plenty blame to go around.
Click to expand...
And yet...they never seem to get around to mentioning those folks, do they. And small wonder. They will be voting for one of them in 2016.
 
Geoist said:
What is altruism? The concern over the welfare of others.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

1: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species
Click to expand...

Altruism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


I benefit from all of my actions (well, except the mistakes, and even those I learn from). I wouldn't do these things if they didn't make me feel better.
 
VanceMack said:
Ho Chi Minhs people brutalized south Vietnamese. When we bailed on them it was far worse for them. Our mistake was not our presence in Vietnam, it was that we didnt engage the war to defeat the enemy. The error was political, tactical. We should not have been there if our intent was to not defeat the enemy and you dont defeat an enemy like North Vietnam by fighting a fight by their rules. Glad you made it home safe, but seriously dood SIDE with Minh??? You realize how many south Vietnamese people he slaughtered on his way to taking over the country...right? **** dood...considering your zeal for Minh you must have had a hard on thinking about Saddam.

How many people would have died in a Vietnamese war had Minh decided to stay his ass in North Vietnam?
Click to expand...


The people of South Vietnam and North Vietnam both called Minh the "George Washington of Vietnam," and I'm pretty sure they weren't referring to the Bedford-Stuvyesant George. We were equally wrong being involved in Vietnam as we were in Iraq.
 
DaveFagan said:
The people of South Vietnam and North Vietnam both called Minh the "George Washington of Vietnam," and I'm pretty sure they weren't referring to the Bedford-Stuvyesant George. We were equally wrong being involved in Vietnam as we were in Iraq.
Click to expand...
Which people were those...the 13000 he slaughtered in 1960? The 750 or so that were kidnapped never to be seen again? The 15, South Vietnamese civilians he had killed by 1965 or the 46,000 that had been kidnapped? Oh...Imsure there are a lot of people that he thought was swell...and probably a lot that thought...well...not so much. Minh...Saddam...hell you add Pol Pot you could have yourself a helluva golfing foursome. The stories you could share...
 
upsideguy said:
The original name of the operation was Operation Iraqi Liberation.... but then they thought about it and decided you can't have an acronym that states the obvious....


This is one of the better things I have seen on the body count:

The Iraq War: Ten Years in Ten Numbers - By Neta C. Crawford | The Middle East Channel

...and, yes, it was a Bush elective war. It is on his record... for those that think you can whine away Bush's miserable record arguing that it is something we all should forget because Obama has his own problems...
Click to expand...

I followed the link. It's depressing to know the Iraqi facts, past or present.
 
VanceMack said:
Which people were those...the 13000 he slaughtered in 1960? The 750 or so that were kidnapped never to be seen again? The 15, South Vietnamese civilians he had killed by 1965 or the 46,000 that had been kidnapped? Oh...Imsure there are a lot of people that he thought was swell...and probably a lot that thought...well...not so much. Minh...Saddam...hell you add Pol Pot you could have yourself a helluva golfing foursome. The stories you could share...
Click to expand...

Minh, Saddam, Pol Pot and GWBush, first nosepicker.
 
DaveFagan said:
Minh, Saddam, Pol Pot and GWBush, first nosepicker.
Click to expand...
Thems your boyz. And for the record...you must think JFK and Johnson were ****in Satan...right?
 
DaveFagan said:
How Many Iraqis Died in the Iraq War? "And when respondents were asked in a different poll (AP/Ipsos, 2/12/07-2/15/07) to give their "best guess" about civilian deaths, 24 percent chose the option of 1,001 to 5,000 deaths.
These answers are, of course, way off the mark. Estimates of the death toll range from about 174,000 (Iraq Body Count, 3/19/13) to over a million (Opinion Business Research, cited in Congressional Research Service, 10/7/10). Even at the times of those U.S. polls, death estimates were far beyond the public's estimates." "
And when they are, they could be a massive undercount. A December 1, 2011CBS Evening News report told viewers that "more than 50,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in the war" (FAIR Action Alert, 12/2/11). This figure was sourced to iCasualties.org, which had one of the lowest estimates of civilian casualties at the time and warned readers that the number was probably a severe undercount.
The "corrected" figure that CBS put forth 11 days later was 115,676 civilians killed, and sourced to Iraq Body Count–still one of the most conservative estimates to be found (FAIR Activism Update, 12/13/11)." Does this huge discrepancy reflect poorly on our Major Media for lack of reporting? Is it OK for the USA to kill 100,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqis so it's not really news. It's OK, they died because of a figmentary WMD causation. Who gives a rat's ass.
Click to expand...

Why exactly should I care? The ****ing bastard threatened at shot as us, even right before the invasion, so why should I give a damn how many Iraqi's died to take him and his boys out? I'm alive, he's dead, sounds like a fair price on a good deal to me.
 
DVSentinel said:
Why exactly should I care? The ****ing bastard threatened at shot as us, even right before the invasion, so why should I give a damn how many Iraqi's died to take him and his boys out? I'm alive, he's dead, sounds like a fair price on a good deal to me.
Click to expand...


You should care because it was a "war of choice" not a defense against a threat or attack. The dead are still dead and We, the USA people are the fingers on the triggers. We took the war to Iraq and Iraq presented no threat, although it does have lots of feedstock for those Tejas refineries. OIL, me bucko, Black Gold and that's a damn good reason to attack and wipeout those slimy, no-good, usin' up my oxygen Iraqis. War is good bidness, and bidness is good, eh? I'm speakin' Texican there.
 
Wiggen said:
After looking at this chart, it seems to me that if oil was all we wanted, why don't we just invade Canada and seize it. That seems to me to be a lot easier than engaging in a war half way around the world. Maybe we should ask those who are convinced our only interest in Iraq was the oil that question.
Click to expand...

Exactly. IF oil was a reason, it certainly wasn't the only reason or even the main reason.
 
DaveFagan said:
You should care because it was a "war of choice" not a defense against a threat or attack. The dead are still dead and We, the USA people are the fingers on the triggers. We took the war to Iraq and Iraq presented no threat, although it does have lots of feedstock for those Tejas refineries. OIL, me bucko, Black Gold and that's a damn good reason to attack and wipeout those slimy, no-good, usin' up my oxygen Iraqis. War is good bidness, and bidness is good, eh? I'm speakin' Texican there.
Click to expand...

Technically, all wars are wars of choice. You have rejected the reason that Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire and since we were there to enforce the cease fire, what would you have suggested? I hope you will answer that question and not drop into more annoying accented English typing. This isn't an audio medium.
 
VanceMack said:
Right...but admitting that the vast majority of Iraqis killed have been killed by Islamic terrorists (errrrr...insurgents) wouldnt play well with the cool kids. Even thought the Iraqis wrote and voted on their own constitution, elected their own government and were supported in training their police, military, and rebuilding their infrastructure and given at least a real shot at democracy, and even though the people killing Iraqis are Islamic extremists...its still and always the eeeeeevil Bush's fault. And we will continue to be given threads like this as long as Obama continues to look like **** and people like the OP feel the need to divert attention from the current goings on.
Click to expand...

Definitely seems like there is an ulterior motive to just bring this up out of the blue.

Insurgents probably killed more Iraqis than all the allies combined.
 
ChrisL said:
Exactly. IF oil was a reason, it certainly wasn't the only reason or even the main reason.
Click to expand...

I think oil was (and is) an important consideration. Without it, the West would be responsible for paying for all the nation building. It's much more efficient to start with countries that can fund their own development to some extent.
 
ecofarm said:
I think oil was (and is) an important consideration. Without it, the West would be responsible for paying for all the nation building. It's much more efficient to start with countries that can fund their own development to some extent.
Click to expand...

I agree that it was a consideration perhaps, but not the main reason for starting war IMO.
 
ChrisL said:
I agree that it was a consideration perhaps, but not the main reason for starting war IMO.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was a reason for the war. It was a reason why Iraq was at the top of the priority list, though other things were obviously far more important factors.
 
ecofarm said:
I don't think it was a reason for the war. It was a reason why Iraq was at the top of the priority list, though other things were obviously far more important factors.
Click to expand...

Such as the fact that he couldn't be trusted, that he was always making threats and was a thorn in our sides, he threatened the world with WMD, always starting trouble with neighboring countries and killing his own people, for starters.
 
ChrisL said:
Such as the fact that he couldn't be trusted, that he was always making threats and was a thorn in our sides, he threatened the world with WMD, always starting trouble with neighboring countries and killing his own people, for starters.
Click to expand...

I'd put the major factors as such:

1. Genocide, twice
2. Violation of 17 Ch7 unscrs
3. Invaded neighbors, twice
4. Fake WMD program
5. Institutionalized rape
6. Oil to provide for development
7. Geographic position

While 6 and 7 are not reasons to go to war, they are important factors.
 
ecofarm said:
I'd put the major factors as such:

1. Genocide, twice
2. Violation of 17 Ch7 unscrs
3. Invaded neighbors, twice
4. Fake WMD program
5. Institutionalized rape
6. Oil to provide for development
7. Geographic position

While 6 and 7 are not reasons to go to war, they are important factors.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the Oil for Food program in #6?
 
ChrisL said:
Are you referring to the Oil for Food program in #6?
Click to expand...

No, I should include that (his selling of the food). It would be about #6. The original #6 refers to the country having resources to pay for its own development to a large extent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom