• 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 .
Really, yes. He is exactly right. :coffeepap

By that logic, the British created the environment for the US to become a world power, so they're ultimately responsible for this.

William the Conqueror is to blame.

lol funny stuff
 
By that logic, the British created the environment for the US to become a world power, so they're ultimately responsible for this.

William the Conqueror is to blame.

lol funny stuff

Not exactly. But the British did have there share of imperialistic moments and are responsible for the damage they caused as well. The war and the killing doesn't happen if the US doesn't invade. It's just that simple.
 
Not exactly. But the British did have there share of imperialistic moments and are responsible for the damage they caused as well. The war and the killing doesn't happen if the US doesn't invade. It's just that simple.

The US doesn't invade unless the British colonize the Atlantic seaboard, thus giving an opportunity for the US to become a nation that eventually has the opportunity to invade Iraq.

Either people are responsible for their actions or they're not. Apparently, you were vehemently against the war and are looking to pile things on it in an attempt to create a more robust moral high ground?
 
The US doesn't invade unless the British colonize the Atlantic seaboard, thus giving an opportunity for the US to become a nation that eventually has the opportunity to invade Iraq.

Either people are responsible for their actions or they're not. Apparently, you were vehemently against the war and are looking to pile things on it in an attempt to create a more robust moral high ground?

You're the one saying we're not responsible for our actions. Apparently you think any consequence of our actions should be blamed on others. This is becoming the way if think for to many today. We not invade, the killing doesn't happen. We invaded a country on a pretext, with no reasonable justification, costing hundreds of thousands of lives, but lack the balls to take responsibility (or at least one do).
 
You're the one saying we're not responsible for our actions.

No.

The US is responsible for the people that the US killed. The Iraqi army is responsible for the people that they killed. The JRTN is responsible for the people they killed. The JAM is responsible for the people they killed. The AAS is responsible for the people they killed.

People are responsible for their own actions. It's not just the US that is responsible for their own actions and...everyone else's too. That makes no sense.

Apparently you think any consequence of our actions should be blamed on others.

I think people that killed people are to blame for those deaths.

This is becoming the way if think for to many today. We not invade, the killing doesn't happen. We invaded a country on a pretext, with no reasonable justification, costing hundreds of thousands of lives, but lack the balls to take responsibility (or at least one do).

I take responsibility for all the people I've killed in my life.
 
Since the official number is between 150,000 and 1,000,000.....who are any of you to know the answer?
 
No, I attribute the deaths to the indirect results of the US action. We created the environment in which death and misery prevailed, like fertilizing a garden.

......The problem with your assessment is that it ignores virtually every single Muslim nation in the region. Muslims throughout the region have shown a great talent for slaughtering their own. The entire Arab Spring is full of slaughter and execution. Palestinians have had more blood shed at the hands of other Muslims in two separate events than it has seen from Israel in over 60 years of warfare. Syria, by itself, has proven over the last 2 years what Muslim rage is capable of within its own societies. Afghans are constantly being slaughtered by fellow Muslims. But Iraqis are somehow a product of American invasion? And when Syrians start dying as a result of an American issued weapon will Muslim rage in Syria be an American fault as well?

With or without American intrusion, Muslims have proven to be their own worst enemies. Blaming the "foreign devil" is a scapegoat in which shallow, ignorant Westerners have been all too eager to legitimize.

Tribal superiority is the goal of the Muslim world. You see it every single day in the news between Cairo and Islamabad. Iraqis have their own culture to blame for their blood. Maybe more Westerners should start seeing this region for what it is rather than offering them legitimacies in their denials.
 
Last edited:
......The problem with your assessment is that it ignores virtually every single Muslim nation in the region. Muslims throughout the region have shown a great talent for slaughtering their own. The entire Arab Spring is full of slaughter and execution. Palestinians have had more blood shed at the hands of other Muslims in two separate events than it has seen from Israel in over 60 years of warfare. Syria, by itself, has proven over the last 2 years what Muslim rage is capable of within its own societies. Afghans are constantly being slaughtered by fellow Muslims. But Iraqis are somehow a product of American invasion? And when Syrians start dying as a result of an American issued weapon will Muslim rage in Syria be an American fault as well?

With or without American intrusion, Muslims have proven to be their own worst enemies. Blaming the "foreign devil" is a scapegoat in which shallow, ignorant Westerners have been all too eager to legitimize.

Tribal superiority is the goal of the Muslim world. You see it every single day in the news between Cairo and Islamabad. Iraqis have their own culture to blame for their blood. Maybe more Westerners should start seeing this region for what it is rather than offering them legitimacies in their denials.


Right! No OIL in Cairo or Islamabad. See it for what it is.
 
No.

The US is responsible for the people that the US killed. The Iraqi army is responsible for the people that they killed. The JRTN is responsible for the people they killed. The JAM is responsible for the people they killed. The AAS is responsible for the people they killed.

People are responsible for their own actions. It's not just the US that is responsible for their own actions and...everyone else's too. That makes no sense.



I think people that killed people are to blame for those deaths.



I take responsibility for all the people I've killed in my life.

So I you let a hold play with a loaded pistol, and the child ****s some, you hold no blame? No, you're trying to make excuses because apparently you have low nation esteem and can't accept responsibility. No invasion, these deaths and suffering don't happen.
 
So I you let a hold play with a loaded pistol, and the child ****s some, you hold no blame? No, you're trying to make excuses because apparently you have low nation esteem and can't accept responsibility. No invasion, these deaths and suffering don't happen.

Did you just compare the entire nation of Iraq to children? I hope they don't read that and take the liberal Westerner to heart, they might get "low nation esteem". Which apparently is the only reason anyone could possibly have a different viewpoint from your own.

lol

I hope you take responsibility for that horrible post and argument.
 
Right! No OIL in Cairo or Islamabad. See it for what it is.

So did you miss the point on purpose just to be obtusely argumentative? The point was to show how Muslims slaughter each other routinely and without the help of any outsider. The fact that oil exists in the Middle East has nothing to do with their tribal competition to rule over each other or their quest to use Islam to inflict oppression over each other. Or do you think the absence of oil would make the tribes love each other? If this is what you think you should refer to the region's history, going as far back as the Rashidun caliphate period when the tries first began slaughtering each other over rights to Islam. You see, without the oil, without the West, and without the phases of the moon, the Middle East is still full of Muslims doing what they seem to do best to each other.

So when people pretend that Muslim slaughter in Iraq is because of American intervention, they should reflect upon the entire region and stop being selective in their assessments. It's quite simple. With oppressive dictators, Muslims behave, but create rage for which their is only "foreign devils" to point towards. Without oppressive dictators, Muslims misbehave and commence to slaughter. Consider three things.....

1) Ever notice that the more healthy and behaved Muslims in the world are those that get further away from the heartland of Islam? Where is Turkey located? Where is Indonesia located? Where is Iran located?

2) Another thing to consider is their individual histories. Egypt, Turkey, and Iran seem to have a healthier disposition towards progress, education, and social advancement than the rest. Know what sets them apart? They all have written histories prior to Islam and the Qu'ran. Egyptians, Persians, and Ottomans have an identity that transcends religious fervor.

3) The root thing to consider that ignites their rage is how they have been forced to live with each other due to European colonialism and bad border making, and later to Cold War prescriptions of "stability." Tribes that have historically not gotten along were suddenly forced together behind bad borders, which tribes that have historically gotten along were separated by bad borders. Do you think Europeans would get along had this occurred to them? Even with their tribes separated according to cultural identity they managed to start two World Wars. Maybe first and foremost, the cure to the Middle East is to re-define the borders according to base tribe just like everywhere else in the world.
 
Did you just compare the entire nation of Iraq to children? I hope they don't read that and take the liberal Westerner to heart, they might get "low nation esteem". Which apparently is the only reason anyone could possibly have a different viewpoint from your own.

lol

I hope you take responsibility for that horrible post and argument.

Not really. Just chose a simple analogy, hoping you could then see his your actions have consequence. Invasion creates a vacuum. In terms of knowing predictable results, you have to know going in that it will lead to struggle, deaths, a fight for power. Just as you know there will be potentially dangerous consequences to letting. Child play with a gun. It is not that a nation is like a child, but that the consequences of the actions are equally predictable. So, focus on the point, and try not to dodge it.
 
Not really. Just chose a simple analogy, hoping you could then see his your actions have consequence. Invasion creates a vacuum. In terms of knowing predictable results, you have to know going in that it will lead to struggle, deaths, a fight for power. Just as you know there will be potentially dangerous consequences to letting. Child play with a gun. It is not that a nation is like a child, but that the consequences of the actions are equally predictable. So, focus on the point, and try not to dodge it.

So some people are more responsible for their actions than others. That's the point (yours anyway), no one is trying to dodge it.

You think the US is more responsible for its actions than other nations/groups/people are, apparently.
 
So some people are more responsible for their actions than others. That's the point (yours anyway), no one is trying to dodge it.

You think the US is more responsible for its actions than other nations/groups/people are, apparently.

For this war we are. We were reckless, immoral, and dishonest.
 
For this war we are. We were reckless, immoral, and dishonest.


See the second sentence is the problem. That has no bearing on this discussion. If we were careful, moral, and honest, would we have less responsibility for the death there?

If no, why mention it at all? It certainly makes it appear as if, to you, the level of responsibility it somehow dependent upon justice. The two are two completely separate concepts.

If yes, you're being astonishingly clear that you're holding a strange double standard: people are responsible for what they do regardless of how careful, moral, and honest they are. Who would think otherwise, and why?

But it really doesn't matter, you've already admitted to having a double standard anyway, so it's no use having this discussion with you. We're not able to agree on terms. But it's refreshing that you admitted to it.
 
See the second sentence is the problem. That has no bearing on this discussion. If we were careful, moral, and honest, would we have less responsibility for the death there?

If no, why mention it at all? It certainly makes it appear as if, to you, the level of responsibility it somehow dependent upon justice. The two are two completely separate concepts.

If yes, you're being astonishingly clear that you're holding a strange double standard: people are responsible for what they do regardless of how careful, moral, and honest they are. Who would think otherwise, and why?

But it really doesn't matter, you've already admitted to having a double standard anyway, so it's no use having this discussion with you. We're not able to agree on terms. But it's refreshing that you admitted to it.

It has every bearing. Had we not been reckless, we would have put people in the position we. Responsible people are thoughtful and cautious. Had we been moral, we would not have invaded on a pretext, been the aggressor, and thus brought war and harm to a people. And if we had leaders who were honest, we wouldn't have present the deceptions that feed the fever here at hope, gathering support for a war without real justification. Our leaders doing these things makes them responsible. If we were cautious, moral, and honest, we wouldn't have invaded in the first place.

We and we alone brought he war there. We destabilize. We ignored what was certain to happen. They were plenty if warnings, but we chose war. I'm sorry, but we are responsible for the results of our actions.
 
No, I don't think you understood what I was saying. But it's very interesting that you think people are less responsible for their actions if they're careful, moral, and honest (or maybe just if you agree with what they're doing?).

That's very odd, and while it's certainly understandable, it's not very logical. Fascinating that you're so open about different standards. I kinda took it as a article of faith that most people at least aspire to maintain consistency.
 
No, I don't think you understood what I was saying. But it's very interesting that you think people are less responsible for their actions if they're careful, moral, and honest (or maybe just if you agree with what they're doing?).

That's very odd, and while it's certainly understandable, it's not very logical. Fascinating that you're so open about different standards. I kinda took it as a article of faith that most people at least aspire to maintain consistency.

What your saying has nothing to do with my argument. I made such claim. You're trying to dance around the argument made. The act is what makes them responsible. They brought needless war. Being reckless adds to responsibility. We have a different standard for an accident where everyone was doing what hey should than we do for those who were reckless. This is not a double standard, but proper judgement. We hold those who act immorally to greater disdain than those who behave morally, as we o the honest over the dishonest. Again, proper judgement. The act, reckless, immoral, and dishonest, is what makes us responsible.
 
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.

Saddam only killed 300,000 and that's OK.
 
How so? Our Corporations are profiting by drilling, processing, transporting, refining, and retailing the Iraqi OIL. The Iraqis are getting paid as guilt money so it doesn't look like we are stealing their OIL.

The Iraqis are getting paid, because it's their oil.
 
It has every bearing. Had we not been reckless, we would have put people in the position we. Responsible people are thoughtful and cautious. Had we been moral, we would not have invaded on a pretext, been the aggressor, and thus brought war and harm to a people. And if we had leaders who were honest, we wouldn't have present the deceptions that feed the fever here at hope, gathering support for a war without real justification. Our leaders doing these things makes them responsible. If we were cautious, moral, and honest, we wouldn't have invaded in the first place.

We and we alone brought he war there. We destabilize. We ignored what was certain to happen. They were plenty if warnings, but we chose war. I'm sorry, but we are responsible for the results of our actions.

A lot fewer people would have died, had we not invaded Germany during The Second World War, too. Was FDR a war criminal? Oh...wait...he was a Libbo...of course he wasn't.
 
What your saying has nothing to do with my argument. I made such claim. You're trying to dance around the argument made.

Uhhh...why would I want to do that? You seem very defensive.

The act is what makes them responsible.

Yeah. When I said that about insurgents in Iraq being responsible for the people they killed, you just said it was the responsibility of Americans. This would be an opportunity to correct that.

They brought needless war. Being reckless adds to responsibility.

Yeah...no, I don't think that has any basis in logic whatsoever.

We have a different standard for an accident where everyone was doing what hey should than we do for those who were reckless.

So if the US accidentally went to war....?

This is not a double standard, but proper judgement.

Ahh. Your subjective judgment is proper. One of those guys, I see.

We hold those who act immorally to greater disdain than those who behave morally, as we o the honest over the dishonest. Again, proper judgement. The act, reckless, immoral, and dishonest, is what makes us responsible.

Right, so inconsistency.

Do you think there's any chance that you're quicker to ascribe responsibility for all things negative in Iraq on the US because you disagreed with the war? Any chance at all?

I mean, as we have this conversation, you're having a very difficult time separating those two concepts (responsibility as an idea and the Iraq war) . I wouldn't be surprised at all if in your next post you say you can't separate them because they're part of the same issue. But we were talking about people/organizations being responsible for the acts they do in a general sense, and had gotten away from the specifics. The topic of people/organizations being responsible for the acts they do is something that can be discussed without mentioning Iraq, the US, or even the idea of war at all, you know.

You seem to have extremely strong feelings for this, and I'm gonna have to suggest that maybe your feelings tint your analysis here. Much like Iraqis I've talked to that blamed everything on Saddam; they hated Saddam, so they found ways to justify in their minds that anything bad ultimately came back on him, and was his responsibility. The similarity is striking.
 
A lot fewer people would have died, had we not invaded Germany during The Second World War, too. Was FDR a war criminal? Oh...wait...he was a Libbo...of course he wasn't.

How many died in LBJ's (Democrat) Vietnam?

More than 1 million Vietnamese and more than 58,000 Americans.

No wonder he didn't run for reelection. Washed his hands, sealed his fate.
 
Back
Top Bottom