Has the fact that YOU AND I killed and tortured at least 50,000 Iraqis diminished the damage caused by Osama and 9.11

[Zebo]

50,000 that's it? Saddam killed 300,000 a year how you think he kept those animals under control?

Seriously your stats are bogus.. 50,000 may have died but not at our hands, 90% of it is iraqi on iraqi...just go to antiwar.com and see the latest mosque to be blown up or funeral precession or market place by terrorists. 100 Iraqi a day die from other iraqi.


The second part of your question about pre-emptive attack considered murders? Yes I think so... Iraq was an elective conflict, an attack on someone who posed not only no threat to USA peoples but never attack or harmed us...with much murder and destruction for no good reason GWB should be tried for war crimes.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Ban for trolling.

It isn't trolling fool... by being complicit in this war, every one is responsible for those deaths.. those deaths WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED had it not been for this war. Get out of denial.

I didnt vote for bush, actually I cant legally vote yet. I am not the one who ordered the invasion, you need to get your ****** straight and stop placing fault on the citizens of a nation for the actions of their government. The US has been hijacked by the Bush and his PNOC buddies, we are complacent only in that we have no course of action to take. Feel free to pick up a gun if you wish, but you will only get sent to a secret prison and never seen again.

I didn't vote for him either, but it is the responsibility of the people to control their government in a democracy. Therefore, we must live with the consequences and take responsibility for what we allow to happen.

 

[wazzledoozle]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: wazzledoozle
Ban for trolling.

It isn't trolling fool... by being complicit in this war, every one is responsible for those deaths.. those deaths WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED had it not been for this war. Get out of denial.

I didnt vote for bush, actually I cant legally vote yet. I am not the one who ordered the invasion, you need to get your ****** straight and stop placing fault on the citizens of a nation for the actions of their government. The US has been hijacked by the Bush and his PNOC buddies, we are complacent only in that we have no course of action to take. Feel free to pick up a gun if you wish, but you will only get sent to a secret prison and never seen again.

I didn't vote for him either, but it is the responsibility of the people to control their government in a democracy. Therefore, we must live with the consequences and take responsibility for what we allow to happen.

No one would have allowed Bush to rig the election, we just didnt know at the time. It doesnt help that places like Anandtech lock every conspiracy thread that has to do with 9/11 or election fraud.

 

[bobdelt]

Aparentley we are all guilty, all 300 million Americans. Which means that we each killed 1/600th of a person.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Zebo
50,000 that's it? Saddam killed 300,000 a year how you think he kept those animals under control?

WTF?!?!?



Saddam is attributed to about 300,000 killed throughout his entire rule (over 20 years). And the bulk of those came at Tal Anfar and the 1991 uprisings by Kurds and Shiites (urged by the US and then left out to die when Saddam's helicopter gunships mowed them down while the US sat back and watched)

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Zebo
50,000 that's it? Saddam killed 300,000 a year how you think he kept those animals under control?

WTF?!?!?



Saddam is attributed to about 300,000 killed throughout his entire rule (over 20 years). And the bulk of those came at Tal Anfar and the 1991 uprisings by Kurds and Shiites (urged by the US and then left out to die when Saddam's helicopter gunships mowed them down while the US sat back and watched)

No one really knows but it's easily in seven fiqures and it's a hell of a lot more accurate than USA killed 50000 iraqis.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/weekinreview/26JOHN.html

 

[conjur]

I don't have a paid subscription to NYTimes Select.

But, here are the estimates for Saddam:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#sadhus

300,000 over 24 years.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't have a paid subscription to NYTimes Select.

But, here are the estimates for Saddam:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#sadhus

300,000 over 24 years.

That does not include the 500,000 to 1 million deaths in the Iraq-Iran war.
Here is a source that claims 600,000 civilain executions under Saddam.
The Saddam death total averages out to 70-125 civilian deaths a year for his entire 24 years.

The best figures for the number of deaths since our invasion is in the 40,000 range.

So let's do the math.
Saddam let's 1 million total deaths, which is most likely low, but a good figure if you include civilians and war dead.
Since US invasion 40,000

Saddam in power 24 years.
1,000,000 divided by 24= 41,666 per year

US invasion 3 years
40,000 divided by 3 years = 13,333 per year

WOW who would have thought...
There are on average less Iraqis dying now than died under Saddam, what the hell...
I guess we can say that we actually saved lives...

Dunhunan, if you don't like my conclusion use some hard evidence to dispute it, not name calling.

Source of Saddam figures:
http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

 

[ProfJohn]

oops

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
WOW who would have thought...
There are on average less Iraqis dying now than died under Saddam, what the hell...
I guess we can say that we actually saved lives...

Is that a tongue in your cheek, or are you just glad to see us?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
WOW who would have thought...
There are on average less Iraqis dying now than died under Saddam, what the hell...
I guess we can say that we actually saved lives...

Is that a tongue in your cheek, or are you just glad to see us?

Well it is the truth, as ugly of a truth as it is.

I'd much rather be talking about a few thousand who might have died during the inital invasion and peace and happiness since.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I'd much rather be talking about a few thousand who might have died during the inital invasion and peace and happiness since.

Yeah... but then, reality always has to raise its ugly head, but NOTHING is uglier than whatever the Bushwhackos try to pass off as "truth."

Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?

And they silence the voices arising,
From those who would show us the light.
With their guys with their spies in the skies watching you and your neighbor.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't have a paid subscription to NYTimes Select.

But, here are the estimates for Saddam:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#sadhus

300,000 over 24 years.

That does not include the 500,000 to 1 million deaths in the Iraq-Iran war.
Here is a source that claims 600,000 civilain executions under Saddam.
The Saddam death total averages out to 70-125 civilian deaths a year for his entire 24 years.

The best figures for the number of deaths since our invasion is in the 40,000 range.

So let's do the math.
Saddam let's 1 million total deaths, which is most likely low, but a good figure if you include civilians and war dead.
Since US invasion 40,000

Saddam in power 24 years.
1,000,000 divided by 24= 41,666 per year

US invasion 3 years
40,000 divided by 3 years = 13,333 per year

WOW who would have thought...
There are on average less Iraqis dying now than died under Saddam, what the hell...
I guess we can say that we actually saved lives...

Dunhunan, if you don't like my conclusion use some hard evidence to dispute it, not name calling.

Source of Saddam figures:
http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

Ah, the simpleton analysis.

Typical.

Let's take out the rebellions/uprisings put down by Saddam (as any sitting leader would have done the same) and that brings us down to about 60,000 over 24yrs (2500/yr)

And, sorry, the Iran/Iraq war doesn't count. That was a war, not part of oppressing his own people.

Right now, the average death toll of civilians in Iraq is 700/mo. = 8400/yr)
http://icasaulties.org
(and that's a very conservative estimate)

 

[DealMonkey]

One death is a tragedy, 50000 deaths is a statistic?

 

[johnnobts]

my reply to this retarded topic: no, this does not diminish the damage caused by osama bin ladan.

here we have a bunch of goobs just like Sen. Jay Rockerfeller, who said this week that Iraq was better off with Saddam in power. My suggestion, send Rockerfeller off to Iraq among the Kurds, and replay his remarks to the Kurdish people. Unbelievable. President Lincoln would have done this, and I suspect FDR would have too.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: johnnobts
my reply to this retarded topic: no, this does not diminish the damage caused by osama bin ladan.

here we have a bunch of goobs just like Sen. Jay Rockerfeller, who said this week that Iraq was better off with Saddam in power. My suggestion, send Rockerfeller off to Iraq among the Kurds, and replay his remarks to the Kurdish people. Unbelievable. President Lincoln would have done this, and I suspect FDR would have too.

I would imagine Rockerfeller was speaking about the impending (if not already) Civil War that is occurring in Iraq and that the sectarian violence will continue and deepen and that sooner or later Iraq will dissolve into a land of chaos, civil war, genocide and puppet regional dictators/overlords and perhaps worst of all a "fascist" Islamic radical theocracy(ies) who spawn way more terrorists than Saddam (a secularist) ever did. It isn't that Iraq was better off with Saddam but he was controlling separate tribal groups through brute force that now unfettered could cause far more damage than Saddam's brutality. It is like removing Mussolini and suddenly having Hitler/Goring/Goebbels/Himmler all pop up who were previously controlled. (I am only using the historical context of these brutal men for a disclaimer).

What is the answer? Stay the course in my opinion to try and salvage a unified secular republic of Iraq. We broke the country now we are responsible for it.

I did not vote for Bush either time and think the War in Iraq was incredibly stupid but we must now not abandon the Iraqi people (or our troops).

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: conjur

Ah, the simpleton analysis.

Typical.

Let's take out the rebellions/uprisings put down by Saddam (as any sitting leader would have done the same) and that brings us down to about 60,000 over 24yrs (2500/yr)

And, sorry, the Iran/Iraq war doesn't count. That was a war, not part of oppressing his own people.

Right now, the average death toll of civilians in Iraq is 700/mo. = 8400/yr)
http://icasaulties.org
(and that's a very conservative estimate)

Ok based on your logic:
1. We are right now in a rebellion/uprising that we are in the process of "putting down" therefore these deaths don't count (after all we are the "sitting leader" and "any sitting leader would have done the same")
or
2. Since the Iraq-Iran war deaths don't count, and this is a "war" then all the deaths in it don't count either.
or
3. We can stop making excuses for all the people killed under Saddam or trying to explain them away with "any sitting leader" type lines and just look at the facts.

The fact is more people died per year under Saddam than are dying now, a lot more.
Does this make the deaths of 40,000 people a good thing? No, of course not.


Ps. Stalin killed 20 million people, I guess that is ok because as you say "any sitting leader would have done the same"

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Adfaw
First off, this thread is a flaming thread right from the topic line. I think placing 50,000 lives on the shoulders of people who had no hand in the decision making is a little crude dude. Serously, I can't think of anything people in america and other countries get more heated about than these fueds over the war in Iraq. When I was in Argentina for a year that's all they wanted to talk to me about. Bush and the war and how evil they thought we were. My problem is that we did find some anthrax and there have been evidences of biological weapons found in those countries. If we don't do something who will? Do we just wait till we lose fifty thousand people to fight back? I guess I don't understand. True, some of the things going on overseas are less than pleasing and I'd like to see some things changed, but it's far from the torture chambers of the medieval period.

The US signed the UN Charter, A Treaty! We, the US, can not invade a sovereign nation unless we can show that the invaded nation was about to invade us and that our actions was to obviate that. The UN Security Counsel would not agree to the 'draft resolution' we passed around.. which would have authorized the invasion ... maybe... so when you ask "If we don't do something who will" I have to say that is up to the body of nations of which we are but one...

 

[LunarRay]

We didn't invade Iraq to count who killed who.. we did so based on our assertion that Iraq possessed WMD, Delivery Systems and intended to launch those WMD in 40 days!

It is for the UN to act in matters of Human Rights Violations not the unilateral or bilateral protectorate of the US and Great Britain.

Like Woodstock in '69 where everyone but me went who was old enough to have gone... no one voted for Bush who was old enough to have done so.. Who elected him if no one voted for him.. Not one person on my 'block' says they did.. nor any or many in this thread... amazing..

 

[mchammer]

The UN is political. Law itself is political. Whether war and death are "justified" is not connected to either of these. What if France caved and the UNSC approved the war? Would it be justifed? By your reasoning Gulf War I was justified?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: dahunan
violence will beget more violence

You seem to imply that non-violence would beget more non-violence?

If only that were true. Unfortunately, religious fundamentalism isn't bound by any kind logic. Whether or not anybody agrees with the war in Iraq, much less general US foreign policy, non-violence is usually paid back with suicide bombers when it comes to Islamic fundamentalists.

If you disagree, then explain all of the Muslim suicide bombers around the world in nations other than the US.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
We didn't invade Iraq to count who killed who.. we did so based on our assertion that Iraq possessed WMD, Delivery Systems and intended to launch those WMD in 40 days!

It is for the UN to act in matters of Human Rights Violations not the unilateral or bilateral protectorate of the US and Great Britain.

Like Woodstock in '69 where everyone but me went who was old enough to have gone... no one voted for Bush who was old enough to have done so.. Who elected him if no one voted for him.. Not one person on my 'block' says they did.. nor any or many in this thread... amazing..

Hey, I've voted for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the last three elections. If only None Of The Above would run...

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
We didn't invade Iraq to count who killed who.. we did so based on our assertion that Iraq possessed WMD, Delivery Systems and intended to launch those WMD in 40 days!

It is for the UN to act in matters of Human Rights Violations not the unilateral or bilateral protectorate of the US and Great Britain.

Like Woodstock in '69 where everyone but me went who was old enough to have gone... no one voted for Bush who was old enough to have done so.. Who elected him if no one voted for him.. Not one person on my 'block' says they did.. nor any or many in this thread... amazing..

Solona Beach Ca does'nt decide the presidential election all by itself. Everyone in my neighborhood voted Bush as far as I can tell and the red states elected bush, the heartland. The shits starting to hit the fan though everywhere and just wait until after novemeber elections, Bush will castrated finally and get his just due for all his failures.

What?s happening in Washington now is that the establishment political class?and that includes the military, moderate Republican and Democratic members of Congress, the jabbering pundits and op-ed writers, and the bulk of the thinktank denizens?are coming to grips with the stark fact that the war in Iraq is over. And that the United States has lost. It?s beginning to sink in, but it won?t be confronted directly by the political class until after the November elections. After that, all hell is going to break loose. If the Democrats win back Congress, it will happen faster?but even if the Republicans hang on, the gusting winds on Iraq now buffeting the White House will gather strength to become a full-fledged, Category 5 hurricane.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/08/iraqs_reality_sinks_in.php

 

[piasabird]

So if someone is about to thrust a knive into your heart do you just stand there and take it or do you defend yourself???

My guess is that most people will try to avoid violence, but if someone keeps punching you you might want to fight back.

Osama blew up embasies and we did nothing
Osama blew up the USS Cole we attack an asprin factory (Almost nothing)
Osama Tried to blow up the world trade center and we did nothing
Osama destroyed the trade Center

Do you see a pattern here?

If someone really wants to kill Americans, then they will keep doing it if you dont fight back. Doing nothing is sometimes worse than fighting back.

The goal if these idiots is basically world dominion. If you want to have a beard and see your wife get the you know what beat out of here, just do nothing.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Harvey
[Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?

Shameless plug for your lame song?