'I THOUGHT WE WERE DIFFERENT' -US General

[glenn1]

glenn,

You are making an error in logic I have seen you commit over and over again.

You can not draw an analogy between countries where there is an immediate threat of large-scale loss of life and countries where that loss of life happened 10 or 20 years ago.

Saddam was not presently nor threatening to in the immediate future commit any large-scale humanitarian crimes. Thus, no large-scale loss of life was prevented by the US's actions. How many Iraqis would have died at the hand of Saddam in tha past couple of years without US intervention? How many have died with US intervention? Unless you can find evidence that there have actually been lives saved, you cannot use the humanitarian argument. I doubt you will be able to find such evidence.

The humanitarian argument for invading Iraq is weak. It is even weaker considering that the initial reasons used to justify the invasion had little to do with humanitarian concerns.

As always Kibbo, you make one of the most cogent arguments here. Although I ultimately reach a different conclusion than you, I can respect your argument as being vigorous, pertinent to the matter at hand, and logically consistent, and appreciate you bringing it to the table.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: glenn1

glenn,

You are making an error in logic I have seen you commit over and over again.

You can not draw an analogy between countries where there is an immediate threat of large-scale loss of life and countries where that loss of life happened 10 or 20 years ago.

Saddam was not presently nor threatening to in the immediate future commit any large-scale humanitarian crimes. Thus, no large-scale loss of life was prevented by the US's actions. How many Iraqis would have died at the hand of Saddam in tha past couple of years without US intervention? How many have died with US intervention? Unless you can find evidence that there have actually been lives saved, you cannot use the humanitarian argument. I doubt you will be able to find such evidence.

The humanitarian argument for invading Iraq is weak. It is even weaker considering that the initial reasons used to justify the invasion had little to do with humanitarian concerns.

As always Kibbo, you make one of the most cogent arguments here. Although I ultimately reach a different conclusion than you, I can respect your argument as being vigorous, pertinent to the matter at hand, and logically consistent, and appreciate you bringing it to the table.

I would like to know how you can come to a different conclusion, you don't have to answer if you don't want to, i would just like to hear what your argument for it is.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Is this some kind of sick joke? 5,000 a DAY were dying while he was in power, compared to 13,000 killed by us in the last 18 months. Maybe not directly by his hand, but by his using food moneys to build palaces.

Uhh...

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#sadhus

Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000
8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
US Government estimates a total of 300,000 murders
180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
60,000 Shiites in 1991
50,000 misc. others executed
"Human rights officials" est.: 500,000
Iraqi politicians: over a million

Try 34/day. And most of that was in a few incidents (Kurds and Shiites)

 

[miketheidiot]

the pentagon estimates 2500 "insurgants" killed in august and 66 americans. thats roughly 80 per day. Keep in mind that none of these would have been insurgents had we not invaded.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: cobalt
Angry at me? I'm just going on your information oh-enlightened-one. "5,000 a DAY were dying while he was in power".

EDIT: You know what, that is going in my sig. Thanks!

Your inferrence that our servicement are directly attacking civilians angers me greatly. Your 'skill' with numbers and intentionally misconstruing arguments makes me laugh.

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Man, sometimes you are just being too damn stubborn. You said that he killed 5000 a day, the wording does not say that he did this one day and not any other day.

Tell me, when someone asks you how much you make do you then say "i make xxxxx a month, every month" so they will get that it is every month and not just one month in your lifetime?

And i ask you for a link to back up your claim.

Do you assume that I made xxxx a month when I was five? No, but you'll make an exception here now that it is convenient to do so.

The same area that once suffered the destruction of 4,000 villages, chemical weapons attacks, and the murder or disappearance of 182,000 Kurds and Turkmans, is actually flourishing as evidenced by its recent construction of 20,000 new homes, 800 water systems, 600 schools, and 2,300 kilometers of new roads.
...
Also during the 1990s, deaths of children under age five in south and central Iraq more than doubled, from 56 deaths per 1,000 to 131 deaths per 1,000. In the north, by contrast, the death rate of such children decreased from 80 to 70 per 1,000. These numbers offer remarkably stark evidence that the suffering of Iraq?s overall population is due not to the sanctions, but to Saddam Hussein?s monstrous corruption.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Ar...eadArticle.asp?ID=1344

Originally posted by: cobalt
Angry at me? I'm just going on your information oh-enlightened-one. "5,000 a DAY were dying while he was in power".

EDIT: You know what, that is going in my sig. Thanks!

Your inferrence that our servicement are directly attacking civilians angers me greatly. Your 'skill' with numbers and intentionally misconstruing arguments makes me laugh.

Originally posted by: conjur
Uhh...

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#sadhus

Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000
8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
US Government estimates a total of 300,000 murders
180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
60,000 Shiites in 1991
50,000 misc. others executed
"Human rights officials" est.: 500,000
Iraqi politicians: over a million

Try 34/day. And most of that was in a few incidents (Kurds and Shiites)

As usual, your statements do not refute mine. In fact, they actually lend credence to my argument. As I said previously, "Maybe not directly by his hand, but by his using food moneys to build palaces." I can't find numbers regarding starvation deaths pre-OIF, as all the links now are regarding during and since OIF. 5,000 may be high, but 500,000 without the starvation deaths is 5,000 a day for 100 days, which is an order of magnitue more than we have killed, Yet you're still going to argue that we're doing more harm than good?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Uhh...

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#sadhus

Iraq, Saddam Hussein (1979-2003): 300 000
8/9 Dec. 2003 AP: Total murders
New survey estimates 61,000 residents of Baghdad executed by Saddam.
US Government estimates a total of 300,000 murders
180,000 Kurds k. in Anfal
60,000 Shiites in 1991
50,000 misc. others executed
"Human rights officials" est.: 500,000
Iraqi politicians: over a million

Try 34/day. And most of that was in a few incidents (Kurds and Shiites)

As usual, your statements do not refute mine. In fact, they actually lend credence to my argument. As I said previously, "Maybe not directly by his hand, but by his using food moneys to build palaces." I can't find numbers regarding starvation deaths pre-OIF, as all the links now are regarding during and since OIF. 5,000 may be high, but 500,000 without the starvation deaths is 5,000 a day for 100 days, which is an order of magnitue more than we have killed, Yet you're still going to argue that we're doing more harm than good?

They lend credence but you offer no proof? And the UN sanctions had nothing to do with it? The sanctions Powell wanted to modify to allow humanitarian aid in and put more pressure on Saddam's military resources?

What about our sanctions against North Korea? Cuba? How many dead there? Guess we should line some troops and get ready to invade them, too.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
They lend credence but you offer no proof? And the UN sanctions had nothing to do with it? The sanctions Powell wanted to modify to allow humanitarian aid in and put more pressure on Saddam's military resources?

What about our sanctions against North Korea? Cuba? How many dead there? Guess we should line some troops and get ready to invade them, too.

Let me know if you ever have anything constructive to add to an argument rather than just saying how poorly the current plan is working. I can sit here all day and say 'well, I guess NASA should figure out wtf they're doing with their spacecraft,' but if I can't give any helpful advice or creative criticism, then I guess I would just be... Oh, who am I kidding. Have a

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
They lend credence but you offer no proof? And the UN sanctions had nothing to do with it? The sanctions Powell wanted to modify to allow humanitarian aid in and put more pressure on Saddam's military resources?

What about our sanctions against North Korea? Cuba? How many dead there? Guess we should line some troops and get ready to invade them, too.

Let me know if you ever have anything constructive to add to an argument rather than just saying how poorly the current plan is working. I can sit here all day and say 'well, I guess NASA should figure out wtf they're doing with their spacecraft,' but if I can't give any helpful advice or creative criticism, then I guess I would just be... Oh, who am I kidding. Have a

Nice diversion. You have acquired a fine skill at doing that.

Here's a batch of for you

 

[Klixxer]

Forget the argument CycloWizard, if you think that saying "he killed 5000 a day" is the same as "one day he killed over 5000" then you can continue believing it, i think you are just being overly stubborn and can't admit it was a mistake on your part.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Nice diversion. You have acquired a fine skill at doing that.

Here's a batch of for you

OK champ, you win. Iraq is a horribly botched political scheme by Bush specifically for the sake of getting oil. Not only that, but he forces our troops to mow down civilians in unthinkable numbers. Not only that, but Bush thinks that Kerry should be the next president. I'll cede anything you want if you will just MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTION. If you can't do that simple thing, then your input here is beyond useless - it's counterproductive.

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Forget the argument CycloWizard, if you think that saying "he killed 5000 a day" is the same as "one day he killed over 5000" then you can continue believing it, i think you are just being overly stubborn and can't admit it was a mistake on your part.

That's funny, since I'm the only one I've EVER seen on this forum admit a mistake, which I have done on several occasions. I also already admitted that the 5,000 a day is probably high - it's a number I heard thrown around before the war and pulled it out to make a counterpoint, not as the focus of my entire argument. I also never argued that 5000 a day is the same as one day he killed 5000, strawman. I said based on the estimates of executed people alone (500,000, per conjur's post), here is how it would break down:

Saddam's civilian death rate since 1991:
500,000 casualties/365 days/year /13 years =105 people executed PER DAY for thirteen years.

US-inflicted civilian casualties:
12800 casualties /30 days/month / 18 months = 24 people killed per day for 18 months.

So, as I was saying in the thrust of my argument, you can't possibly argue that Iraq is not better off now than they were under Saddam.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Nice diversion. You have acquired a fine skill at doing that.

Here's a batch of for you

OK champ, you win. Iraq is a horribly botched political scheme by Bush specifically for the sake of getting oil. Not only that, but he forces our troops to mow down civilians in unthinkable numbers. Not only that, but Bush thinks that Kerry should be the next president. I'll cede anything you want if you will just MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTION. If you can't do that simple thing, then your input here is beyond useless - it's counterproductive.

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Forget the argument CycloWizard, if you think that saying "he killed 5000 a day" is the same as "one day he killed over 5000" then you can continue believing it, i think you are just being overly stubborn and can't admit it was a mistake on your part.

That's funny, since I'm the only one I've EVER seen on this forum admit a mistake, which I have done on several occasions. I also already admitted that the 5,000 a day is probably high - it's a number I heard thrown around before the war and pulled it out to make a counterpoint, not as the focus of my entire argument. I also never argued that 5000 a day is the same as one day he killed 5000, strawman. I said based on the estimates of executed people alone (500,000, per conjur's post), here is how it would break down:

Saddam's civilian death rate since 1991:
500,000 casualties/365 days/year /13 years =105 people executed PER DAY for thirteen years.

US-inflicted civilian casualties:
12800 casualties /30 days/month / 18 months = 24 people killed per day for 18 months.

So, as I was saying in the thrust of my argument, you can't possibly argue that Iraq is not better off now than they were under Saddam.

You REALLY like the word strawman, don't you? Few are the posts you post without that word.

So you are saying that 5000 was a little bit low, you meant 105?

You are not exactly clear about what you mean.

You might want to give specific time periods if you are going to claim anything that happens "a day" for a specific period of time.

But that is probably a strawman too from my side.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
You REALLY like the word strawman, don't you? Few are the posts you post without that word.

So you are saying that 5000 was a little bit low, you meant 105?

You are not exactly clear about what you mean.

You might want to give specific time periods if you are going to claim anything that happens "a day" for a specific period of time.

But that is probably a strawman too from my side.

I can't help but cry strawman constantly - that's what 90% of the arguments on this forum amount to. Trying to argue for a position that I never purported to support in the first place would be idiotic.

I thought I was perfectly clear, and I still think that I was. As I stated before, I don't think that if you asked me how much I make a month now that you would automatically extrapolate that to when I was five. However, you are willing to do that when I say at what rate people were dying before the war. Amazing.

Further, the 105 number that I gave in my previous thread, as I *explicitly stated*, is only the number of people EXECUTED every day for the last 13 years. The higher number that I indicated was that number plus the number of deaths caused by Saddam's negligence, which I have admitted eleventy billion times already was an exaggeration on my part. Hopefully this is perfectly clear.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Nice diversion. You have acquired a fine skill at doing that.

Here's a batch of for you

OK champ, you win. Iraq is a horribly botched political scheme by Bush specifically for the sake of getting oil. Not only that, but he forces our troops to mow down civilians in unthinkable numbers. Not only that, but Bush thinks that Kerry should be the next president. I'll cede anything you want if you will just MAKE AN ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTION. If you can't do that simple thing, then your input here is beyond useless - it's counterproductive.

I'm sorry...I fail to see where the post of yours to which I was replying demanded some opinion on an "ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTION". I was merely correcting your gross exaggeration. You're the one with the panties all in a wad.

Settle down, Beavis.

Originally posted by: Klixxer
Forget the argument CycloWizard, if you think that saying "he killed 5000 a day" is the same as "one day he killed over 5000" then you can continue believing it, i think you are just being overly stubborn and can't admit it was a mistake on your part.

That's funny, since I'm the only one I've EVER seen on this forum admit a mistake, which I have done on several occasions. I also already admitted that the 5,000 a day is probably high - it's a number I heard thrown around before the war and pulled it out to make a counterpoint, not as the focus of my entire argument. I also never argued that 5000 a day is the same as one day he killed 5000, strawman. I said based on the estimates of executed people alone (500,000, per conjur's post), here is how it would break down:

Saddam's civilian death rate since 1991:
500,000 casualties/365 days/year /13 years =105 people executed PER DAY for thirteen years.

US-inflicted civilian casualties:
12800 casualties /30 days/month / 18 months = 24 people killed per day for 18 months.

So, as I was saying in the thrust of my argument, you can't possibly argue that Iraq is not better off now than they were under Saddam.

BTW, nice of you to distort the numbers from my post. That human rights estimate is 500,000 dead over the term of Saddam's reign, including the killings of the Kurds and Shiites in the rebellions where the US left them out to dry.

Soo...that upper estimate of 500,000 is over 24 years, not 12.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I said based on the estimates of executed people alone (500,000, per conjur's post), here is how it would break down

WTH are you talking about? conjur's post says 300,000 since 1979, not 1991. The lion's share of these were Kurds killed in the late '80s, at a time Saddam Hussein was receiving vast amounts of funds and materiel illegally from the Reagan administration. Many were likely killed with American-supplied weapons for that matter. All of this happened before GHWB elected to allow Saddam to remain in office at the close of the first Gulf War.

This must be the new math, eh?

As I said above, I don't contest that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but you're cooking the books, albeit not as much as you were above, when you claimed he had killed 5,000 per day.

 

[CycloWizard]

OK conjur, I'll try to spell this out as best as I possibly can. This is what I asked for an alternative to:

They lend credence but you offer no proof? And the UN sanctions had nothing to do with it? The sanctions Powell wanted to modify to allow humanitarian aid in and put more pressure on Saddam's military resources?

What about our sanctions against North Korea? Cuba? How many dead there? Guess we should line some troops and get ready to invade them, too.

What do you propose that we do? First, you argue that sanctions are killing people. Then you argue that the primary alternative to sanctions be tossed out the window. What is your proposal, or are you saying that thousands of deaths are water under the bridge, nothing we can do?

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Klixxer
You REALLY like the word strawman, don't you? Few are the posts you post without that word.

So you are saying that 5000 was a little bit low, you meant 105?

You are not exactly clear about what you mean.

You might want to give specific time periods if you are going to claim anything that happens "a day" for a specific period of time.

But that is probably a strawman too from my side.

I can't help but cry strawman constantly - that's what 90% of the arguments on this forum amount to. Trying to argue for a position that I never purported to support in the first place would be idiotic.

I thought I was perfectly clear, and I still think that I was. As I stated before, I don't think that if you asked me how much I make a month now that you would automatically extrapolate that to when I was five. However, you are willing to do that when I say at what rate people were dying before the war. Amazing.

Further, the 105 number that I gave in my previous thread, as I *explicitly stated*, is only the number of people EXECUTED every day for the last 13 years. The higher number that I indicated was that number plus the number of deaths caused by Saddam's negligence, which I have admitted eleventy billion times already was an exaggeration on my part. Hopefully this is perfectly clear.

No, sorry, your numbers are off but you probably have some explanation why they were and how that is clear too.

I really don't care, you went from 5000 to 105 and in the end that would be arund 50.

And then you include those who died of starvation and such, how many people would have died if Saddam hadn't been in place? You have to know this to be able to say that Saddam killed those people who starved to death.

Your argument does not hold water no matter how much you twist it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
OK conjur, I'll try to spell this out as best as I possibly can. This is what I asked for an alternative to:

They lend credence but you offer no proof? And the UN sanctions had nothing to do with it? The sanctions Powell wanted to modify to allow humanitarian aid in and put more pressure on Saddam's military resources?

What about our sanctions against North Korea? Cuba? How many dead there? Guess we should line some troops and get ready to invade them, too.

What do you propose that we do? First, you argue that sanctions are killing people. Then you argue that the primary alternative to sanctions be tossed out the window. What is your proposal, or are you saying that thousands of deaths are water under the bridge, nothing we can do?

Answer my questions first.

 

[CycloWizard]

Amazing. Klixxer and conjur, you manage to destroy any thread you step into. I don't even remember what points I was trying to make anymore. You pick apart posts by microanalyzing them rather than reading what is actually written, then argue something completely different. Then, when I try to make one particular point, you'll both refuse to address it and instead keep bringing up old posts that don't relate to it in any way. Piss off.

 

[conjur]

Awww...is the wittle twoll wunning away?


Why don't you answer the questions asked of you?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Amazing. Klixxer and conjur, you manage to destroy any thread you step into. I don't even remember what points I was trying to make anymore. You pick apart posts by microanalyzing them rather than reading what is actually written, then argue something completely different. Then, when I try to make one particular point, you'll both refuse to address it and instead keep bringing up old posts that don't relate to it in any way. Piss off.

It seems to me they have both been here far longer than you, and have greater credibility than you've managed to earn in your two weeks here. I gather you don't like having your broad, inaccurate assertions challenged, so you're asking them to bow out of the conversation. That isn't how reasoned debates happen.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Awww...is the wittle twoll wunning away?


Why don't you answer the questions asked of you?

Because you won't reciprocate.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Have we changed so much, from our mission of being an example to mankind to becoming its emperor?

Yeah, I much preferred when we were a wonderful example of allowing mass-murdering dictators to rule with impunity. Why'd we have to go and screw things up by giving Saddam such a hard time, after all he only nerve gassed a few Kurd villages? If only we could go back to the days of yore before OIF when we would just wink at a Pol Pot enjoying his killing fields. Or we didn't disturb those millions of Africans dying of starvation because of civil war in Ethiopia. Or get in the way of the busy work of genocides. Yeah, those were the days.

You see, this is exactly the problem! You think government can solve all the world's ails, and condemn as somehow immoral anyone who knows that it can't. Just like Democratic Socialism, but reversed from an inward view to an outward view. 2 sides of the same coin.
Well, you're wrong. The world doesn't want to be changed or saved, or at least not against its will by force of some foreign government, and it will resist to the death any attempt to save it. How deluded, naive, and arrogant we are! And now the unrealistic ideology of people who think just like you is putting the world on the brink of world war. Couldn't be a better time though, as the Democratic Socialists are just about to bankrupt us anyway with their unrealistic ideology...

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Amazing. Klixxer and conjur, you manage to destroy any thread you step into. I don't even remember what points I was trying to make anymore. You pick apart posts by microanalyzing them rather than reading what is actually written, then argue something completely different. Then, when I try to make one particular point, you'll both refuse to address it and instead keep bringing up old posts that don't relate to it in any way. Piss off.

Piss off?

Honestly CycloWizard, you have tried to make a point that 5000 a day died during Saddams regime, you have tried again and again to back it up with false statements, every one of them being WAY off and you blame us for calling you on false statements?

No, YOU piss off if you cannot provide any evidence what so ever to any of your claims but just make them up as you go along. You COULD have said that you were wrong and really had no idea about the facts, now we had to DRAG that out of you instead.

You can go to hell you fact inventing POS.

 

[Vic]

For those of you who justify attacking Iraq, I have a question.

What if the rest of the world decided that the US leadership was guilty of crimes and/or represented a serious threat to world safety, and must be removed, would they be justified in attacking our sovereign nation and overthrowing our government?

Answer the question please.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Amazing. Klixxer and conjur, you manage to destroy any thread you step into. I don't even remember what points I was trying to make anymore. You pick apart posts by microanalyzing them rather than reading what is actually written, then argue something completely different. Then, when I try to make one particular point, you'll both refuse to address it and instead keep bringing up old posts that don't relate to it in any way. Piss off.

Piss off?

Honestly CycloWizard, you have tried to make a point that 5000 a day died during Saddams regime, you have tried again and again to back it up with false statements, every one of them being WAY off and you blame us for calling you on false statements?

No, YOU piss off if you cannot provide any evidence what so ever to any of your claims but just make them up as you go along. You COULD have said that you were wrong and really had no idea about the facts, now we had to DRAG that out of you instead.

You can go to hell you fact inventing POS.

Yes, continue arguing points that I already rescinded, rather than read any of my posts since hte first page of this thread. :thumbsup: