Anti-War George Soros Funded Iraq Study

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: maluckey
WOW! Just WOW!

OK people,

First off, living conditions (except in Baghdad) aren't worse off now than under Saddam. The Coalition didn't destroy major infrastructure. Medical services are just as good if not better in ALL the outlying provinces. In the Northern provinces, medical care is as good/better across the board, especially so in the outlying districts. Refugees and IDP's are moving back at an alarming rate for us, and that in itself is causing issues.

Additionally, power is present virtually everywhere as opposed to under Saddam power was primarily for govt. facilities and Baghdad. Since I arrived here (14 months ago and counting), we have worked on rebuilding places that were unused since the 70's! Apparently Saddam had an issue with education..... we have worked on myriads of
Schools taken over as Courts, police stations that were schools, Correctional facilities that were schools, and Army outposts that were...schools.

Hospitals that were empty and unused were fairly common to encounter. Crime Labs with skeleton crews and zero funding since the early 90's, and infrastructure projects poorly built and maintained. We've dealt with high stay at home rates from Police to sanitation workers not wanting to go to work (but still getting paid) for years on end.

I can go on, but first-hand accounts are worthless when most people are making up facts to suit their agenda.

Conditions are improving every year, and have been since 2003 according to the pass-down logs. Once again the pass-down logs list all failures successes and trends of the people before me from a first-hand account with data to back it, but that is irrelevant when internet sites and studies make up stuff for agendas.

You want to know exactly what's going on? Ask someone actually in theater (outside of Baghdad) that works for DOS, DOJ, USAID, any IQ PRT, the Dept of State, CPATT or MPRI and you'll get the skinny. Otherwise, can go to your favorite website and read crap.

It doesn't matter man; most people, as apparent here would rather just accuse the US of genocide or take the word of a woman who spent a mere 3 months since 1977 in Iraq. And the fact that we've been there with the military makes us even less credible in their eyes.

 

[maluckey]

When you go to war, regardless of reasons, you utilize every resource available. We should have thrown in a 1+ million troops, take advantage of the somewhat supportive allies to the highest degree (Israel, Britain, and France), and then completely destroy areas that pose threats that would otherwise take lengthy campaigns to subdue.

All fine and dandy...except that the CF had little to no real support from the Iraqis. Here in Iraq, the only thing that you can count on is that nobody can plan on anything being static. Alliances change at the drop of a hat. We recently witnessed a feud between two families that ended by two brothers murdering the others families over ten sheep, and the honor that went with the revenge killing.

Graft and corruption are part of the culture. It won't change with ten million troops. The locals are patient, and have done this for 5000 years.

 

[Lemon law]

As this thread now goes into different but related areas, the new bone of contention becomes
the level of infrastructure for the "average" Iraqi. And the abstract question of how to measure it. But I think we can somewhat agree that we are dealing with electricity, running water, and sewage as the basic measures. And to further complicate things, we can look at these levels at different times. (1) Its valid to look at these levels at the time right after Saddam took over. I suggest January of 1981 which was a time where Saddam was not yet co-opted by our CIA and also a time when Saddam was putting oil revenues to work building Iraqi infrastructure and before he started diverting most of the oil revenues into buying military hardware. (2) We can also look at these levels immediately prior to the US bombing that occurred during gulf war one. Sadly the resulting embargoes after Gulf war one benefited Saddam and punished the Iraqi people. (3) We can look at the levels just prior to our military occupation. (4) We can look at those levels now.

And in terms of those levels now, we have to recognize that its vastly different in different places. And its also a matter of perception. Some Iraqis will blame to insurgents who have a role in preventing the repair of infrastructure and others will blame to the US for the failures.
And because an emotion is as valid as a fact, those emotions tend to steer Iraqi anger and action.

The point being, there are methodologies common to the social sciences that can get a good approximation of those perceptions. But until we can put some valid numbers on things we
just have a pile of anecdotal evidence that is almost impossible to sort out into trends.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
It's easy to count dead people, it only takes a finger and a piece of paper, or maybe some minor statistical cross section counting. It is immpossible to count the ones that you saved. That takes a little help from the media (good news), and a lot of faith. In this country, that doesn't sell.

:thumbsup:

 

[Atreus21]

Thought I'd weigh in on a couple of points in this thread.

First, PCSurgeon and others have repeatedly called for other posters to define exactly how many deaths are acceptable, to which I have to ask, "To whom?" To me? I'm frankly not sure. I think I can tell you how many are unacceptable. If American troops had killed 650,000 innocent civilians, I think that'd be quite unacceptable. If they'd killed 500, that'd be just as unacceptable. But 10 or 15, that's acceptable. In such a massive undertaking, there will be soldiers who become frustrated and lazy. I don't excuse them for their crimes, but you can't demonize the entire effort based on the evil actions of a few.

However, the way the question is asked forces anyone who commits a direct answer to imply that America is responsible for these deaths. That's why no one wanted to make a direct answer. 150,000 Iraqis dead, by who's hand? I'd bet the farm that most of them were killed by the insurgency. But I get the idea that the people that asked the original question are assigning indirect responsibility on the United States, the reasoning being that if we had not invaded, those people might yet be alive. And that's nonsense. Indirect responsibility isn't responsibility at all. I might just as easily say that if Saddam weren't such a retard, we might never have gotten involved there in the first place, including the Gulf War, so it is therefore he who is indirectly responsible. No. The sole party who is responsible is the person who physically pulls the trigger. Not to mention, since when did people become so precious fond of the Iraqi people? I don't recall that there was all this outcry when Saddam was executing them by the thousands; only when America became involved did we scrutinize who and how many were killed. This indicates dishonesty to me; it doesn't matter how many people died, but rather that Bush can be blamed for it.

Secondly, I think PCSurgeon made the point that no deaths are acceptable. I can relate to the principle in this, but I have to disagree. No deaths are ideal. But would this have been realistic, for example, in either of the first two world wars? Our freedom, and the privileges we enjoy so much, are paid for in blood. Braver men than I have sacrificed more than I ever will so that I can live largely as I choose. I don't say men dying is a good thing. I say it's necessary. There are some things worth dying for. Taking out Hitler is one of them. Ridding the world of Nazism is another. Attempting to take out crazed terrorists who see no difference between killing civilians and killing soldiers is another. Whether or not we like the circumstances of this war, we are the good guys, and Al-Qaida the bad.

I try not to insult those who disagree with me, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy from any who choose to do so. Thanks.

 

[Deudalus]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Thought I'd way in on a couple of points in this thread.

First, PCSurgeon and others have repeatedly called for other posters to define exactly how many deaths are acceptable, to which I have to ask, "To whom?" To me? I'm frankly not sure. I think I can tell you how many are unacceptable. If American troops had killed 650,000 innocent civilians, I think that'd be quite unacceptable. If they'd killed 500, that'd be just as unacceptable. But 10 or 15, that's acceptable. In such a massive undertaking, there will be soldiers who become frustrated and lazy. I don't excuse them for their crimes, but you can't demonize the entire effort based on the evil actions of a few.

However, the way the question is asked forces anyone who commits a direct answer to imply that America is responsible for these deaths. That's why no one wanted to make a direct answer. 150,000 Iraqis dead, by who's hand? I'd bet the farm that most of them were killed by the insurgency. But I get the idea that the people that asked the original question are assigning indirect responsibility on the United States, the reasoning being that if we had not invaded, those people might yet be alive. And that's nonsense. Indirect responsibility isn't responsibility at all. I might just as easily say that if Saddam weren't such a retard, we might never have gotten involved there in the first place, including the Gulf War, so it is therefore he who is indirectly responsible. No. The sole party who is responsible is the person who physically pulls the trigger. Not to mention, since when did people become so precious fond of the Iraqi people? I don't recall that there was all this outcry when Saddam was executing them by the thousands; only when America became involved did we scrutinize who and how many were killed. This indicates dishonesty to me; it doesn't matter how many people died, but rather that Bush can be blamed for it.

Secondly, I think PCSurgeon made the point that no deaths are acceptable. I can relate to the principle in this, but I have to disagree. No deaths are ideal. But would this have been realistic, for example, in either of the first two world wars? Our freedom, and the privileges we enjoy so much, are paid for in blood. Braver men than I have sacrificed more than I ever will so that I can live largely as I choose. I don't say men dying is a good thing. I say it's necessary. There are some things worth dying for. Taking out Hitler is one of them. Ridding the world of Nazism is another. Attempting to take out crazed terrorists who see no difference between killing civilians and killing soldiers is another. Whether or not we like the circumstances of this war, we are the good guys, and Al-Qaida the bad.

I try not to insult those who disagree with me, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy from any who choose to do so. Thanks.

Good post.

 

[Moonbeam]

Soros is a deviate and must be punished. Money is to prop up the military industrial complex not tear it down. Spread the word. Soros is a deviate. We must laugh at him. He is a clown.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ozoned
It's easy to count dead people, it only takes a finger and a piece of paper, or maybe some minor statistical cross section counting. It is immpossible to count the ones that you saved. That takes a little help from the media (good news), and a lot of faith. In this country, that doesn't sell.

So how many American lives did we save by invading Iraq? I don't think any as Iraq was not a threat to us. I't sure has cost us American lives.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ozoned
It's easy to count dead people, it only takes a finger and a piece of paper, or maybe some minor statistical cross section counting. It is immpossible to count the ones that you saved. That takes a little help from the media (good news), and a lot of faith. In this country, that doesn't sell.

So how many American lives did we save by invading Iraq? I don't think any as Iraq was not a threat to us. I't sure has cost us American lives.

So do you believe war is never justified, unless the US is attacked directly, on our own soil? Just curious.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
We must laugh at him. He is a clown.

:thumbsup:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ozoned
It's easy to count dead people, it only takes a finger and a piece of paper, or maybe some minor statistical cross section counting. It is immpossible to count the ones that you saved. That takes a little help from the media (good news), and a lot of faith. In this country, that doesn't sell.

So how many American lives did we save by invading Iraq? I don't think any as Iraq was not a threat to us. I't sure has cost us American lives.

So do you believe war is never justified, unless the US is attacked directly, on our own soil? Just curious.

I didn't say that.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ozoned
It's easy to count dead people, it only takes a finger and a piece of paper, or maybe some minor statistical cross section counting. It is immpossible to count the ones that you saved. That takes a little help from the media (good news), and a lot of faith. In this country, that doesn't sell.

So how many American lives did we save by invading Iraq? I don't think any as Iraq was not a threat to us. I't sure has cost us American lives.

So do you believe war is never justified, unless the US is attacked directly, on our own soil? Just curious.

I think our invasion of Iraq has been hugely negative for every American outside of a choice few who benefit. For the Iraqi's, it's obviously been a massive disaster so far.

I support a large military, for domestic defense. I don't support invasions of other nations for nebulous or false reasons. I expressly detest the pretense of the doctrine of preemptive war, because you can excuse away profiteering and manipulation.

War should be an ultimate, final, and hopefully avoided option. When the decision is reached that there is no viable alternative (wasn't done in this case, obviously, it should be fought with decisive force, for success and national security, as Eric Shinseki described in his troop estimate for maintaining order after the fall of Saddam. This, to me, is the ultimate proof of our current Administration's absolute blindness to truth (the alternative is too horrible to bear), that they apparently believed that ~150k was sufficient to maintain order in a country rife with ancient blood grudges, and three distinct ethnic/religious groups that were chomping at the bit for a free run at each other for the scraps of power dropped from the coalition master's tables. The alternative, of course, is that the instability of the past 5 years was by DESIGN, not a mistake. You see, it makes it so much more profitable for the select few, if you can drag these things out for so much longer. I'm sure they are dreaming of decades of profits from this endeavour, at any and all costs to the country they are sworn to protect from all enemies, foreign or domestic. I say that these men are traitors to us all. They are either (A)- hopelessly incompetent, for having gotten us into this ludicrous mess, or (B)- hopelessly corrupt, for planning it to occur exactly as it has. This condemnation falls on both halls of evil, the Republicans, and the Democrats, two sides to the same vile coin of death.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ozoned
It's easy to count dead people, it only takes a finger and a piece of paper, or maybe some minor statistical cross section counting. It is immpossible to count the ones that you saved. That takes a little help from the media (good news), and a lot of faith. In this country, that doesn't sell.

So how many American lives did we save by invading Iraq? I don't think any as Iraq was not a threat to us. I't sure has cost us American lives.

So do you believe war is never justified, unless the US is attacked directly, on our own soil? Just curious.

I think our invasion of Iraq has been hugely negative for every American outside of a choice few who benefit. For the Iraqi's, it's obviously been a massive disaster so far.

I support a large military, for domestic defense. I don't support invasions of other nations for nebulous or false reasons. I expressly detest the pretense of the doctrine of preemptive war, because you can excuse away profiteering and manipulation.

War should be an ultimate, final, and hopefully avoided option. When the decision is reached that there is no viable alternative (wasn't done in this case, obviously, it should be fought with decisive force, for success and national security, as Eric Shinseki described in his troop estimate for maintaining order after the fall of Saddam. This, to me, is the ultimate proof of our current Administration's absolute blindness to truth (the alternative is too horrible to bear), that they apparently believed that ~150k was sufficient to maintain order in a country rife with ancient blood grudges, and three distinct ethnic/religious groups that were chomping at the bit for a free run at each other for the scraps of power dropped from the coalition master's tables. The alternative, of course, is that the instability of the past 5 years was by DESIGN, not a mistake. You see, it makes it so much more profitable for the select few, if you can drag these things out for so much longer. I'm sure they are dreaming of decades of profits from this endeavour, at any and all costs to the country they are sworn to protect from all enemies, foreign or domestic. I say that these men are traitors to us all. They are either (A)- hopelessly incompetent, for having gotten us into this ludicrous mess, or (B)- hopelessly corrupt, for planning it to occur exactly as it has. This condemnation falls on both halls of evil, the Republicans, and the Democrats, two sides to the same vile coin of death.

I believe the most likely option is A. I see much more evidence of mere incompetence, if only for the reason that I can't imagine how anyone could've predicted so accurately, without the benefit of hindsight, what would've occurred, to the degree that one might derive a profit from it. Not to mention, this is Bush we're talking about. He's a quintessential member of the "balls before brains" club. No one questions his guts, only his intellect, and that of his advisors. For the same reason that I disagree with 911 conspiracy theories, I can't imagine that this administration could've concocted such a plan with such precise prediction.

If the instability of the past 5 years was by design, then whoever designed it should be dragged in the streets. But c'mon. You have to admit the sheer impracticality of such an allegation. I'm not saying this kind of evil is impossible. I'm saying it's mind-numbingly improbable, not to mention only speculation. We're going with the "who stands to benefit" argument, rather than evidence.

If Bush and his administration were so calculatingly evil, I think we'd see more evidence of it at home. I mean, there's gotta be more profitable ways to covertly screw people over than simply starting a war.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Slick5150

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Slick5150
I'd like to see Pabster specifically address what has been pointed out here that the two studies are looking at two different things, and that the George Soros funded study is in no way proven wrong by the other.

I don't know whether the two studies were looking at different things. What I do know is that Soros funded the one claiming 650,000 deaths which is factually inaccurate. Let me cite the relevant passage from the article I linked:

Professor John Tirman of MIT said this weekend that $46,000 (£23,000) of the approximate £50,000 cost of the study had come from Soros?s Open Society Institute.

I get tired of seeing all these fricking threads where somebody declares something an outrage, gets proven to be wrong about the basis for this outrage, and refuses to say a word in response. You made the statement, have the balls to back it up.

I did.

I didn't dispute that Soros paid for it which is what your "relevant passage" discusses. I disputed the fact that the other report contradicts it, which it doesn't. They are 2 different numbers from looking at 2 different things.

Yeah, I can't see in any way how the conclusion of this study renders the Lansing study's figure of 650,000 inaccurate. Maybe the 650,000 number IS in fact inaccurate, but to say it is so based on the results of a study that isn't even measuring the same thing isn't a logically coherant argument.

Oh, and as far as I can tell the quality of life for Iraqis, at least in Baghdad is horrible compared to how it was before the war. This report from the Brookings institution gives a very good overview of conditions in Iraq. A summary? Oil production now is STILL lower then it was before the war, even though before the war we had huge restrictions in place on what they could sell. Nationwide the situation with electricity (a key quality of life indicator) is in fact better then it was before the war, although not by too much. Electricity in Baghdad however has become a catastrophe, with the hours per day of electricity being about half what they were before. Simply put, the quality of life indicators for the country at a whole have recently (jesus, finally) become slightly better then they were when the country was mired in crippling economic sanctions, but in Baghdad the situation (even post surge) has continued to be a humanitarian nightmare.

Man, I bet the Iraqis are sure glad we 'saved' them.

 

[Arkaign]

I appreciate your response Atreus. I respect it hugely. I do think that starting a war is one of the most tried and true ways to benefit a few at the cost of many. What has this current war cost, so far? I think over half a billion directly, probably triple that in indirect costs. I think it's Vic who has an interesting stock history for a group of companies from May '03 to current. Certain groups benefited by at least $1 Trillion US by the direct result of this action.

And as far as planning. How is it that anyone could have seen the prescription of doom that lay in removing Saddam and then not providing adequate security to contain the various sects and power bases? The underlying discord went back centuries between these factions. Any idiot could have predicted the past five years. I was screaming it from the rooftops in fall '02 when I started to see the inevitability of the propaganda machine against Iraq to achieve it's deadly results. Hell, even an old Dick Cheney interview, he talks of the stupidity of toppling Saddam, and the dangers forthwith. And the cherry on top is a distinguished general telling a committee point-blank, that it would take on the order of 400k men in place to keep things straight.

What a different world we might be in, if Shinseki had not been dismissed. If we had :

(A)- Maintained security
(B)- Protected infrastructure
(C)- Employed, rather than turned to the streets, droves of Iraqi army regulars and staff
(D)- Protected ammo/weapon dumps (there is a documentary which shows insurgents just picking up stockpiles of weapons, and the US basically saying 'we don't have the resources to secure them')
(F)- Secured the borders with Iran, Syria, Turkey, etc.

I could go on, but there's just no denying the utter lack of common sense (if practical results were the intention of this endeavour) evident in nearly every area of this debacle. A 10th-grade honor roll student group could have planned this entire thing better than these assholes.

 

[NeoV]

500,000 dying each year due to sanctions? BS. They had more electricity, running water, and safety in the streets pre-US occupation than post. Their hospitals were much safer and more fully staffed as well. Food was still coming in from the outside. Why where 500k a year dying from the sanctions exactly?

Someone trying to justify this mess pulled that 500k number out of their Arse.

Is that the same intel that told us about the WMD programs, the nuclear programs, and all the other BS we were threatened by? Yah, I'd trust that intel again.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
I appreciate your response Atreus. I respect it hugely. I do think that starting a war is one of the most tried and true ways to benefit a few at the cost of many. What has this current war cost, so far? I think over half a billion directly, probably triple that in indirect costs. I think it's Vic who has an interesting stock history for a group of companies from May '03 to current. Certain groups benefited by at least $1 Trillion US by the direct result of this action.

And as far as planning. How is it that anyone could have seen the prescription of doom that lay in removing Saddam and then not providing adequate security to contain the various sects and power bases? The underlying discord went back centuries between these factions. Any idiot could have predicted the past five years. I was screaming it from the rooftops in fall '02 when I started to see the inevitability of the propaganda machine against Iraq to achieve it's deadly results. Hell, even an old Dick Cheney interview, he talks of the stupidity of toppling Saddam, and the dangers forthwith. And the cherry on top is a distinguished general telling a committee point-blank, that it would take on the order of 400k men in place to keep things straight.

What a different world we might be in, if Shinseki had not been dismissed. If we had :

(A)- Maintained security
(B)- Protected infrastructure
(C)- Employed, rather than turned to the streets, droves of Iraqi army regulars and staff
(D)- Protected ammo/weapon dumps (there is a documentary which shows insurgents just picking up stockpiles of weapons, and the US basically saying 'we don't have the resources to secure them')
(F)- Secured the borders with Iran, Syria, Turkey, etc.

I could go on, but there's just no denying the utter lack of common sense (if practical results were the intention of this endeavour) evident in nearly every area of this debacle. A 10th-grade honor roll student group could have planned this entire thing better than these assholes.

Regarding the incompetence of the effort, you're preaching to the choir. Rumsfeld and Bush tried to do this on the cheap, and our troops and Iraqi civilians paid for it dearly. I don't disagree with the fact that we're over there, but the negligence with which it was undertaken was reprehensible.

I wonder how many big words I can fit into one post before I start feeling arrogant.

However, I'm still unwilling to concede that the Iraq war was waged only because of its profitability to companies like Halliburton. Businesses are supposed to turn a profit, or else they're not in business. I suppose your concern is the question of, when push comes to shove, will Cheney sacrifice American and Iraqi lives to ensure the Iraq war continues to make Halliburton profitable? That's a valid concern, and if that is the case, that's a major problem. But we can't draw such a conclusion simply by observing Halliburton drawing a profit from the war, because they were (I assume) turning profit before the war as well.

I know there's more companies than Halliburton involved in this. I just chose them as an example.

One last point. You mentioned the propaganda machine against Iraq and its deadly results. It's the "deadly results" point that particularly interested me. I don't say that 3000 dead Americans, or however many thousands of dead Iraqis is something we should be happy about. But I do ask that we keep a historical perspective. The Iraq War is now in its fifth year. The battle of Iwo Jima in 1945, which spanned about a month, saw roughly 10,000 casualties, and that's just the Americans. The Japanese saw over 20,000. Or, take the Battle of Stalingrad, which spanned about 200 days. The Russians alone took nearly 500,000 dead, not wounded.

People might say that the current conflict is different. And it is. But imagine how things would've been if Americans then were as impatient as they are now. Regardless of how deadly this war is portrayed in the media and elsewhere, compared to other wars, this is hardly a war at all.

 

[Arkaign]

Fair enough, and thanks again for the coherent and open-minded response! I see you only have 24 posts, but you are a credit to the AT community already. Too much of AT descends easily into flames here in P&N, we can use all the level-headed members we can get

On the topic, I guess we'll hopefully find out a lot more as time goes on.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Thought I'd weigh in on a couple of points in this thread.

First, PCSurgeon and others have repeatedly called for other posters to define exactly how many deaths are acceptable, to which I have to ask, "To whom?" To me? I'm frankly not sure. I think I can tell you how many are unacceptable. If American troops had killed 650,000 innocent civilians, I think that'd be quite unacceptable. If they'd killed 500, that'd be just as unacceptable. But 10 or 15, that's acceptable. In such a massive undertaking, there will be soldiers who become frustrated and lazy. I don't excuse them for their crimes, but you can't demonize the entire effort based on the evil actions of a few.

However, the way the question is asked forces anyone who commits a direct answer to imply that America is responsible for these deaths. That's why no one wanted to make a direct answer. 150,000 Iraqis dead, by who's hand? I'd bet the farm that most of them were killed by the insurgency. But I get the idea that the people that asked the original question are assigning indirect responsibility on the United States, the reasoning being that if we had not invaded, those people might yet be alive. And that's nonsense. Indirect responsibility isn't responsibility at all. I might just as easily say that if Saddam weren't such a retard, we might never have gotten involved there in the first place, including the Gulf War, so it is therefore he who is indirectly responsible. No. The sole party who is responsible is the person who physically pulls the trigger. Not to mention, since when did people become so precious fond of the Iraqi people? I don't recall that there was all this outcry when Saddam was executing them by the thousands; only when America became involved did we scrutinize who and how many were killed. This indicates dishonesty to me; it doesn't matter how many people died, but rather that Bush can be blamed for it.

Secondly, I think PCSurgeon made the point that no deaths are acceptable. I can relate to the principle in this, but I have to disagree. No deaths are ideal. But would this have been realistic, for example, in either of the first two world wars? Our freedom, and the privileges we enjoy so much, are paid for in blood. Braver men than I have sacrificed more than I ever will so that I can live largely as I choose. I don't say men dying is a good thing. I say it's necessary. There are some things worth dying for. Taking out Hitler is one of them. Ridding the world of Nazism is another. Attempting to take out crazed terrorists who see no difference between killing civilians and killing soldiers is another. Whether or not we like the circumstances of this war, we are the good guys, and Al-Qaida the bad.

I try not to insult those who disagree with me, and I'd appreciate the same courtesy from any who choose to do so. Thanks.

:thumbsup:

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Fair enough, and thanks again for the coherent and open-minded response! I see you only have 24 posts, but you are a credit to the AT community already. Too much of AT descends easily into flames here in P&N, we can use all the level-headed members we can get

On the topic, I guess we'll hopefully find out a lot more as time goes on.

Thanks. I try and keep things civil. Otherwise it's just a name-calling contest. I'm glad to see like-minded debaters.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was estimated that under Saddam there were 500,000 Iraqis a year dying due to sanctions. So 650,000 vs. 2,500,000. Apparently those against the war are willing to sacrifice close to an additional 2,000,000 Iraqis to maintain the status quo.

Iraqi conditions are far far worse now than even during the sanctions. So it stands to reason that Iraqis are dying in higher numbers now than then.

Not according to the numbers that get bandied about. You have any proof they are dying in higher numbers now or are you just pulling that statement straight out of your rear end?

Why shouldn't they be dying more now that conditions are worse?

Your opinion on the conditions in Iraq do not constitute fact. Stop trying to create a strawman of an argument. If you have proof that more than 2,500,000 have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion please present it. If not, stop trying to use vapidly poor rationalizations.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28346.html

The dictatorial Iraqi government, which has blamed nearly every civilian funeral since 1991 on sanctions, claims there have been more than 600,000 deaths of under-5-year-olds these past 11 years (4,500 per month) and 1.5 million deaths overall.
***
The idea that sanctions in Iraq have killed half a million children (or 1 million, or 1.5 million, depending on the hysteria of the source) took root in 1995 and 1996, on the basis of two transparently flawed studies, one inexplicable doubling of the studies' statistics, and a non-denial on 60 Minutes.
***
It seems awfully hard not to conclude that the embargo on Iraq has been ineffective (especially since 1998) and that it has, at the least, contributed to more than 100,000 deaths since 1990
***