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

I wonder:

If the US is responsible for Iraqi insurgents setting up car bombs to kill innocent Iraqis, was Saddam responsible for the US attacking Iraq in the first place? I dunno if I'm playing this game correctly. Am I supposed to apply its twisted argumentation through to its logical end (that someone is always to blame other than the person who actually did it), or am I just supposed to stop when I've arrived at someone I don't like, and then blame them?

Can anyone help?

VanceMack said:

Actually Obama did the best thing he could do in Iraq which was absolutely nothing. Bush had already signed an agreement to withdraw troops. All Obama had to do was not screw it up...which he managed to pull off. Unfortunately, Bush did not leave a playbook for a way ahead in Afghanistan so Obama has been floundering. He initially copied the Bush sure which Candidate Obama was opposed to. The problem with that was that his 'surge' was not accomplanied by a specific mission and as a result, we have spent 5 years there not really going after the Taliban, not really having a plan to leave, not really knowing WTF we are doing. And his biggest PR concern there is the Afghanistan mission is the one he said he agreed with and should have engaged in so he cant even blame that one on Bush.

Click to expand...

It certainly does seem like it. They don't tell us much anymore about it either. I find that annoying. Some of us would like to hear about what's happening. It seems as if a good portion of the media just ignores Afghanistan completely.

As a Commander in Chief he has pretty much copied the Bush playbook on everything knowing that the mindless liberals that support him wouldnt give half a damn if he ran against it or not.

Click to expand...

Definitely.

ecofarm said:

WRONG.

They are dead. 400k children DIED, of starvation, because Saddam sold that amount of baby formula and cereal to gather cash for institutionalized rape - in the years JUST PRIOR to the invasion.

Click to expand...

I have you the numbers, going back before my claim. Feel free to pull up counter numbers.

ecofarm said:

The evidence is clear. Saddam sold food that could have prevented the starvation of 400k children so that he could continue to build rape palaces.



The kidnapping, rape, passing down and eventual murder of highschool girls was a matter of state policy, sanctioned by the state and beyond legal rebuke.

Click to expand...

Link a credible source please.

OscarB63 said:

he had a special palace built on "Lost Lake", called the "perfume palace" where his sons and their henchmen took multitudes of hapless Iraqi girls and women to rape and murder them.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Give me a credible source verifying this outrageous claim. And, please, no soldier of fortune bs or forums speculating.

I want hard forensic evidence. Without actual proof, it didn't happen.

calamity said:

I want hard forensic evidence. Without actual proof, it didn't happen.

Click to expand...

Yet you believe the most ridiculous crap about Bush. Claiming he approved the crimes in Abu Graib is even more pathetic than claiming Obama directed the IRS scandal. Yeah, we need absolute proof, except for left-fringe partisan hack conspiracy theory. Bush and Rummy planned rape at Abu Graib, but Saddam never did anything wrong without absolute proof.

ecofarm said:

Yet you believe the most ridiculous crap about Bush. Claiming he approved the crimes in Abu Graib is even more pathetic than claiming Obama directed the IRS scandal. Yeah, we need absolute proof, except for left-fringe partisan hack conspiracy theory. Bush and Rummy planned rape at Abu Graib, but Saddam never did anything wrong without absolute proof.

Click to expand...

What was approved, and proven--if not admitted to--by those up high was the "enhanced interrogation" method used, including sexual bull****, and a lax policy on enforcing discipline which allowed for rapes and other abuses, like those fools snapping pictures of the crap they were doing to prisoners.

ecofarm said:

Yet you believe the most ridiculous crap about Bush. Claiming he approved the crimes in Abu Graib is even more pathetic than claiming Obama directed the IRS scandal. Yeah, we need absolute proof, except for left-fringe partisan hack conspiracy theory. Bush and Rummy planned rape at Abu Graib, but Saddam never did anything wrong without absolute proof.

Click to expand...

His administration set the stage. You might consider the bad barrel makers:

Philip Zimbardo: The psychology of evil | Video on TED.com

Boo Radley said:

His administration set the stage. You might consider the bad barrel makers:

Philip Zimbardo: The psychology of evil | Video on TED.com

Click to expand...

Do you accept the position that Obama engineered the IRS scandal?

This is a big opportunity for you - to discover a partisan perspective for what it is. Perhaps we'll have a break-through.

ecofarm said:

Do you accept the position that Obama engineered the IRS scandal?

This is a big opportunity for you - to discover a partisan perspective for what it is. Perhaps we'll have a break-through.

Click to expand...

Wasn't the IRS scandal "engineered" by a Republican appointee? That Obama sure is one smart feller, convincing the enemy to spy on itself.

ecofarm said:

You misunderstand.

I've never met anyone, in the civilian or military world, that worships the military. Every single person that I've ever met has criticisms of the military. Every single person that I've ever met has things about the military with which they do not agree, be that policy and/or actions.

Click to expand...

As I stated before, everyone has SOMETHING they don't like about the military. That is not really what is being debated here. However, there is a level of reverence to military service/institution that is borderline (if not outright) idolatry. I am not talking about getting down on hands and knees praying, but when a the so-called 'religious' belt out the national anthem with more enthusiasm than a hymn, or when they get more excited about our soldiers killing Muslims over missionaries giving aide and shelter to the innocent (especially Muslim innocents), I think there is an argument to be made for idolatry.

I've met plenty of people who thank teachers, cops, doctors and even meter maids. I've met people who thank those who work in soup kitchens, and I do so as well. None of them, nor I, have ever worshiped the accompanying institution.

Click to expand...

Comparing the level of reverence between a meter maid and a soldier is absolutely ridiculous. And for the third time, I am not simply talking about saying "Thank you."

Geoist said:

However, there is a level of reverence to military service/institution that is borderline (if not outright) idolatry.

Click to expand...

I've never seen such, including my time in the military.

Porchev said:

Saddam was a very bad dude to his own people and our action was better than inaction. I agree with our former President when he said:

"If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Click to expand...

Yes, follow in his footsteps in not playing ball with the US government. This has really nothing to do with Saddam's human rights abuses as we were buddies with Saddam for a time back when he was committing rape and murder (and continue to be close friends with major abusers like Saudi Arabia).

ecofarm said:

I've never seen such, including my time in the military.

Click to expand...

Well, as I stated before, percentage-wise I have met far more veterans who are cynical of the military industrial complex than the average American. But if you are going to be in denial that there is widespread militarist/nationalist thinking in this country then I don't think we are going to get much further in this debate.
http://nationalismwatch.com/

Geoist said:

Well, as I stated before, percentage-wise I have met far more veterans who are cynical of the military industrial complex than the average American. But if you are going to be in denial that there is widespread militarist/nationalist thinking in this country then I don't think we are going to get much further in this debate.
nationalismwatch | tracking nationalism around the world

Click to expand...

Geo, we're slipping into the absolutism again. Of course there is militarism and nationalism in the US. Far more of the latter than the former. Nonetheless, I've never known or met anyone that worshiped the military such that their reverence could be described as idolatry. Everyone I know has complaints about the military of some sort. I don't know anyone who thinks that it or US military actions have been perfect.

Are you jelly?

ecofarm said:

Do you accept the position that Obama engineered the IRS scandal?

This is a big opportunity for you - to discover a partisan perspective for what it is. Perhaps we'll have a break-through.

Click to expand...

The trouble is that you don't realize that accepting something without clear evidence is what is partisan. I'm find with an investigation, and if found guilty convicting. And should be done from the outside, as should have the torture scandal.

But I spoke of setting the stage, gave a clear argument on how that would likely ave been done. I haven't convicted anyone. But I'd love to hear you address the premise.

Way more than Saddam ever killed.

Geoist said:

Yes, follow in his footsteps in not playing ball with the US government. This has really nothing to do with Saddam's human rights abuses as we were buddies with Saddam for a time back when he was committing rape and murder (and continue to be close friends with major abusers like Saudi Arabia).

Click to expand...

So what, he's gone now and the world is better off without him.

ChrisL said:

So what, he's gone now and the world is better off without him.

Click to expand...

How cavalier. I wonder how we'd all feel walking in the shoes of those who lost loved ones during the invasion? The fact us we added injury to injury.

ChrisL said:

So what, he's gone now and the world is better off without him.

Click to expand...

With tens of thousands of lives lost and Iraqis living in fear of terrorist attacks just to put one man down I think that statement is very much debatable.

Geoist said:

With tens of thousands of lives lost and Iraqis living in fear of terrorist attacks just to put one man down I think that statement is very much debatable.

Click to expand...

I think being better off with out Saddam is more of a feel good statement than anything else. Saddam's are far too common in the world to think just killing them off will solve the problem. Most often they are merely replaced by some else, as bad or worse.

Boo Radley said:

I think being better off with out Saddam is more of a feel good statement than anything else. Saddam's are far too common in the world to think just killing them off will solve the problem. Most often they are merely replaced by some else, as bad or worse.

Click to expand...

But as long as they stick with the petrodollar they can be as evil as they want to be.

Geoist said:

But as long as they stick with the petrodollar they can be as evil as they want to be.

Click to expand...

We don't oppose evil. Not if it benefits us. And some who favored rather war will admit that.

Boo Radley said:

It's a good thing to be sure, but even you use the word almost. And yes, we spread it at gun point. We invaded a country, and told them to vote (even though many thought they were voting for us to leave). You can't change the facts.

And yes, I remember all those things. But they are off point. The history here is the ME.

Click to expand...

I think you remember select things. I'm not trying to change any facts. I also don't pick and choose my facts. Iraq's population was of those in the ME that twice before voiced for democracy, but was denied it after WWI and again after WWII. To insist that we told them to vote against their will after removing our dictator denies the majority of Iraq (Shia and Kurds) and caters to those who boycotted (Sunni).

Iraq is in the ME. In fact it is in the very heart of the ME. It is not some separate island on the side for which Muslims throughout the region can't see. The events in Iraq pulled Sunni radicals and extremist from all over the region just to defy the idea of a Shia led Baghdad. It was tribal. It is still tribal. It is Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, etc. It's all about the same thing. Democracy would work as fine and quickly in the MENA as it works everywhere else in the world if those populations were of the same mind and not separated by manufactured and religiously inspired bigotry. Re-draw the borders. Worked for Europe.

MSgt said:

I think you remember select things. I'm not trying to change any facts. I also don't pick and choose my facts. Iraq's population was of those in the ME that twice before voiced for democracy, but was denied it after WWI and again after WWII. To insist that we told them to vote against their will after removing our dictator denies the majority of Iraq (Shia and Kurds) and caters to those who boycotted (Sunni).

Iraq is in the ME. In fact it is in the very heart of the ME. It is not some separate island on the side for which Muslims throughout the region can't see. The events in Iraq pulled Sunni radicals and extremist from all over the region just to defy the idea of a Shia led Baghdad. It was tribal. It is still tribal. It is Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, etc. It's all about the same thing. Democracy would work as fine and quickly in the MENA as it works everywhere else in the world if those populations were of the same mind and not separated by manufactured and religiously inspired bigotry. Re-draw the borders. Worked for Europe.

Click to expand...

Redrawing the boarders there has been all that successful in the past as I recall.

But by gun point, that phrases means you invaded and largely decided for them they would be a democracy. In that sense, we did make then vote. As a people, they have to decide their fate. We shouldn't try to do it for them. There's been too much of that already. We've been imperialistic before, and with mixed results. We might be better off not playing ruler of the world.

Boo Radley said:

I don't think you know more. Your view is just more myopic. There being more than one training grown doesn't change what happened in Iraq. And the region was moving toward democracy before we invaded. In fact, there's a fair argument that we slowed that process down. You speak of history, but don't seem to recall that Israel has used force for a long, long time, with really very little to show for it. This problem can't be won this way, and history tells us this.

Click to expand...

No...the region was not moving towards democracy. The region was stagnate and stale in its status quo while blaming America for their own culture's oppressions. There is no evidence of a movement towards democracy and simply stating it doesn't make it so. Low level democratic processes in Saudi Arabia began after Saddam Hussein was toppled and after their first elections due to population pressures in Saudi Arabia watching Iraqis vote. The pressure that came out of Iraq for the region's dictators was enormous. They began to crack down on their populations or they began to ease oppressions. However, after Iraqis voted in 2010 without international security and with success, a man in Tunisia set himself on fire and sparked the Arab Spring. Do you honestly think that Iraqi voters had nothing to do with this pressure?

By the way, Israel has Israel to show for it. Force is why Israel still exists. Theirs is a defense force. You seem to be convoluting the issues as if Israel has been trying to roll across the region. Put it into perspective.

History tells us many things. Unfortunately for the Middle East, their history has been written largely by Arab colonists and Europeans. Until their borders are re-drawn blood and slaughter will always be the theme whether they slaughter each other or send their children abroad to knock down New York buildings. So for those who try to use history to support minding our own business I offer up Al-Queda and hundreds of others that seek someone to blame. For those who use history to support thundering through the regions with weapons I offer up Iraq or Syria and the tribal freedom it releases. For those who actually understand this history, I offer up the lessons of Europe's World Wars, Yugoslavia and Sudan. Tribe matters and until we stop acting as if lines on a map are forever set in concrete we will continue to ignore history while using it to draw wrong conclusions.

Do you know why the tribes in Europe get along now? It's because their borders define them and going to war with another is an international act of war. The Middle East's tribal conflicts gets defined as something civil rather than what it is. Re-draw their lines and see how much less pressure these populations have.