Poll: If it is true that going into Iraq killed 600,000, was it worth it?

[ProfJohn]

There have not been 600,000 dead. Almost no one accepts that number.

The real number is most likely between 50,000 and 100,000.
Still a lot of people, but no where near 600,000.

To give you an idea of how out of touch that number is just look at World War 2 deaths. Only 5 countries suffered that many battle field deaths in World War 2. Russia, Germany, Japan, China and Poland.
If you look at civilian deaths you only find 8 countries with more than 600,000 civilian deaths in World War 2. To say that as many civilians have died in Iraq as died in Japan or Yugoslavia during WW 2 is just insane.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
America voted for a disaster because they wanted to live through disaster. No matter how people complain, it is what they wanted unconsciously. We are emotionally dead and can't stand the boredom. Disasters make us come alive.

Boredom is a sinister thing, especially in an over stimulated population.

You're both quite right. I first noticed this when the US was still fighting the 'conventional' war in the spring of 03 and when all the right wing nutjobs came out of the woodwork and flooded this forum with excited chatter about how far the troops advanced, how many people they killed etc etc. it was painfully obvious that these people regarded the entire thing as a sport. The ease with which supporters discard old and pick up new justifications for the war only serves to reinforce this view. They don't care about anything but watching their team play :|

Perhaps we've stumbled on to a great reason to legalize drugs. If everyone was high all the time, they wouldn't have the time or energy to oppress and wreck the lives of others for their own amusement.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Banned Member with a new ISP
There have not been 600,000 dead. Almost no one accepts that number.

The real number is most likely between 50,000 and 100,000.
Still a lot of people, but no where near 600,000.

To give you an idea of how out of touch that number is just look at World War 2 deaths. Only 5 countries suffered that many battle field deaths in World War 2. Russia, Germany, Japan, China and Poland.
If you look at civilian deaths you only find 8 countries with more than 600,000 civilian deaths in World War 2. To say that as many civilians have died in Iraq as died in Japan or Yugoslavia during WW 2 is just insane.

Not as insane as trying to justify the invasion of Iraq especially when the reason given by the Dub and his handlers has been exposed as being decietful.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
America voted for a disaster because they wanted to live through disaster. No matter how people complain, it is what they wanted unconsciously. We are emotionally dead and can't stand the boredom. Disasters make us come alive.

Boredom is a sinister thing, especially in an over stimulated population.

You're both quite right. I first noticed this when the US was still fighting the 'conventional' war in the spring of 03 and when all the right wing nutjobs came out of the woodwork and flooded this forum with excited chatter about how far the troops advanced, how many people they killed etc etc. it was painfully obvious that these people regarded the entire thing as a sport. The ease with which supporters discard old and pick up new justifications for the war only serves to reinforce this view. They don't care about anything but watching their team play :|

Perhaps we've stumbled on to a great reason to legalize drugs. If everyone was high all the time, they wouldn't have the time or energy to oppress and wreck the lives of others for their own amusement.

Well, I know a guy who loves football. LOVES it. He doesn't care about it so much when he gets stoned, that's for sure.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

what the fvck is wrong with people, voting yes, it wasn't worth the life of 3 roaches and a dung beetle to go into Iraq. There were/are no WMD's, no mobile chemical labs, no nuclear (or should I say nuke-u-lear) weapons, nothing. Every reason we went in there was debunked, and it had NOTHING to do with the gwot, now that's just a convienent excuse. God I hate this administration, they should be put on the gallows next to Saddam.

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: LordSegan
If it is true that 600,000 Iraqi civilians died as a result of the war, was it still worth it? What if that is more than Saddam killed?

How can we justify that?

That depends. If we leave iraq in no better shape than it was, it would difficult to answer yes. IF we do infact reform Iraq, I think it would be just as difficult to answer no. 600k lives to free 25M is still relatively small price to pay for freedom.

What about 600k embryos to save 25M people from disease?

Oh snap. That's an interesting way to look at it.

OMG i actually smirked when I read that! Awesome way to put it

and to answer the OP's question. I question - how would we feel if our places were switched? What if America was the nation that "needed liberation" and Iraq was the most powerful nation in the world. What is Iraq invaded America to free us and in the process, killed 600,000 of us. Would we agree with it?

Thus, I answer no. It will always be no.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There have not been 600,000 dead. Almost no one accepts that number.

The real number is most likely between 50,000 and 100,000.
Still a lot of people, but no where near 600,000.

To give you an idea of how out of touch that number is just look at World War 2 deaths. Only 5 countries suffered that many battle field deaths in World War 2. Russia, Germany, Japan, China and Poland.
If you look at civilian deaths you only find 8 countries with more than 600,000 civilian deaths in World War 2. To say that as many civilians have died in Iraq as died in Japan or Yugoslavia during WW 2 is just insane.

ProfJohn, you continue to compare this war to WW2 in several ways, but the reality is that the two wars are very different; most would agree the justification for entering WWII, and the stakes at hand, were much greater.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
There have not been 600,000 dead. Almost no one accepts that number.

The real number is most likely between 50,000 and 100,000.
Still a lot of people, but no where near 600,000.

To give you an idea of how out of touch that number is just look at World War 2 deaths. Only 5 countries suffered that many battle field deaths in World War 2. Russia, Germany, Japan, China and Poland.
If you look at civilian deaths you only find 8 countries with more than 600,000 civilian deaths in World War 2. To say that as many civilians have died in Iraq as died in Japan or Yugoslavia during WW 2 is just insane.

ProfJohn, you continue to compare this war to WW2 in several ways, but the reality is that the two wars are very different; most would agree the justification for entering WWII, and the stakes at hand, were much greater.

It's clearly not like WWII. In WWII, when civilian leadership or military leadership failed, they were removed from command.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: jman19
ProfJohn, you continue to compare this war to WW2 in several ways, but the reality is that the two wars are very different; most would agree the justification for entering WWII, and the stakes at hand, were much greater.

That's the thing where people need to learn their history. This is EXACTLY like WW2. Except this time we are doing something to stop it before it gets out of hand.

We learned the lessons from that one and will not let it happen again. Nip it in the bud so to speak. We are at the start of WW3 and the more pre-emptive action we can take to stop it the better.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: jman19
ProfJohn, you continue to compare this war to WW2 in several ways, but the reality is that the two wars are very different; most would agree the justification for entering WWII, and the stakes at hand, were much greater.

That's the thing where people need to learn their history. This is EXACTLY like WW2. Except this time we are doing something to stop it before it gets out of hand.

We learned the lessons from that one and will not let it happen again. Nip it in the bud so to speak. We are at the start of WW3 and the more pre-emptive action we can take to stop it the better.

And how did Iraq fit into that?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: jman19
ProfJohn, you continue to compare this war to WW2 in several ways, but the reality is that the two wars are very different; most would agree the justification for entering WWII, and the stakes at hand, were much greater.

That's the thing where people need to learn their history. This is EXACTLY like WW2. Except this time we are doing something to stop it before it gets out of hand.

We learned the lessons from that one and will not let it happen again. Nip it in the bud so to speak. We are at the start of WW3 and the more pre-emptive action we can take to stop it the better.

No, Iraq was NOT exactly like WW2. I'm not quite sure why you think they are the same thing. If this war was only about the threat of WMD, why did we decide to get in to nation building after easily smashing the Iraqi military forces?

 

[fitzov]

You could justify it by showing that more than 600K would have died as a result of not invading, but go ahead and try.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: LordSegan
If it is true that 600,000 Iraqi civilians died as a result of the war, was it still worth it? What if that is more than Saddam killed?

How can we justify that?

That depends. If we leave iraq in no better shape than it was, it would difficult to answer yes. IF we do infact reform Iraq, I think it would be just as difficult to answer no. 600k lives to free 25M is still relatively small price to pay for freedom.

Wow, I find that comment extremely cynical. Besides which freedom are you referring to. All I see is that choosing to speak your mind publically under Saddam rule and be potentially be killed for it by the state was exchanged only by the number and type of the potential killers. I wouldnt be suprised that if the Iraqis had the freedom to choose, they wouldnt follow your assessment if the situation...

Btw where do you draw your borderline and why? At 1%, 5% 10% or maybe 50% of the population dead?

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What is the magic number of killed before Bush is tried for crimes against humanity and sentenced to hanging?

Isn't it remarkable how some people are in such a rush to try Bush for deaths caused by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence?

I have yet to hear a peep about Iran's & Syria's role in enabling insurgents' activity.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What is the magic number of killed before Bush is tried for crimes against humanity and sentenced to hanging?

Isn't it remarkable how some people are in such a rush to try Bush for deaths caused by Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence?

I have yet to hear a peep about Iran's & Syria's role in enabling insurgents' activity.

I have, NUMEROUS TIMES, complained about Iran's role and have lambasted the fact that the prime minister is a part of SCIRI - whose ultimate goal is to re create Iran in Iraq and they have already taken such steps such as force women at gunpoint to wear the abaya (the type of black cloth used in Iran - but all the women still let their hair hang out over there )

Bush was the enabler. To say that this Iraq violence would have risen either way is a very tough thing to decide simply because we left such a power vaccumm for such a long time without any security that some people decided revenge was a good idea. This isn't because they hate each other- but because they have the ability to take revenge. Add to the fact that politicians pander to a group (pandering religiously is a great tactic, look how well it works here in the USA) and we start to see a lot of these artificial barriers being created where families once intermixed without giving it a thought.

So is it Bush's fault? Not directly. He can't be blamed for everything that occured - but he helped create and nurture the conditions (and trust me its not easy to let a country fall apart the way Bush did it...talk about ignoring military commanders, being blind to things that are going on, declaring victory prematurely, etc. etc. the list goes on its amazing how someone can fumble so much) that lead to the current situation.
But but BREMER was the one who disbanded the Iraqi Army, or forced Iraqi farmers not to use their own seeds....but who hired Bremer and let him achieve everything?

This is why the position is president should go to the smartest most adept people...because it is a job that requires a lot of foresight, and careful calculations and thinking

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: jman19
ProfJohn, you continue to compare this war to WW2 in several ways, but the reality is that the two wars are very different; most would agree the justification for entering WWII, and the stakes at hand, were much greater.

That's the thing where people need to learn their history. This is EXACTLY like WW2. Except this time we are doing something to stop it before it gets out of hand.

We learned the lessons from that one and will not let it happen again. Nip it in the bud so to speak. We are at the start of WW3 and the more pre-emptive action we can take to stop it the better.

We are doing more to create WWIII than we are to stop it.

 

[miketheidiot]

If you trying to make this into a ww2 analogy, how is iraq or iran supposed to compare to germany in any way other than that they don't like jews? Neither iraq or iran had/have the military industrial capacity, population, or competant leadership to even begin to compare them the nazi germany in a realistic political framework.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
If you trying to make this into a ww2 analogy, how is iraq or iran supposed to compare to germany in any way other than that they don't like jews? Neither iraq or iran had/have the military industrial capacity, population, or competant leadership to even begin to compare them the nazi germany in a realistic political framework.

Iran has the population.....

 

[Jaskalas]

Err.. sorry for double post

 

[Jaskalas]

To the OP,

Unless we destroy Iran, then all our efforts in the Middle East have been in vane. So I would say no at this point, because I don?t think we?re capable of deciding to do what is necessary.

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
If you trying to make this into a ww2 analogy, how is iraq or iran supposed to compare to germany in any way other than that they don't like jews? Neither iraq or iran had/have the military industrial capacity, population, or competant leadership to even begin to compare them the nazi germany in a realistic political framework.

War has evolved since then. Think of what a couple of nuclear armed terrorists can do when 19 of them could destroy every major city. You don?t need much more than a heavy water nuclear reactor producing plutonium and you have all the weaponry of war you?ll ever need this century.

19 people committed 9/11. We haven?t seen anything yet.

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: B00ne

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: LordSegan
If it is true that 600,000 Iraqi civilians died as a result of the war, was it still worth it? What if that is more than Saddam killed?

How can we justify that?

That depends. If we leave iraq in no better shape than it was, it would difficult to answer yes. IF we do infact reform Iraq, I think it would be just as difficult to answer no. 600k lives to free 25M is still relatively small price to pay for freedom.

Wow, I find that comment extremely cynical. Besides which freedom are you referring to. All I see is that choosing to speak your mind publically under Saddam rule and be potentially be killed for it by the state was exchanged only by the number and type of the potential killers. I wouldnt be suprised that if the Iraqis had the freedom to choose, they wouldnt follow your assessment if the situation...

Btw where do you draw your borderline and why? At 1%, 5% 10% or maybe 50% of the population dead?

I would say it depends on how bad the situation is. The worse the original system and the greater the alternative = worth more lives. If you need a number or ratio I will say that - generally - when the ratio of deaths to population moves from 1:1 to 1.1 deaths:1 living it is no longer worth the cost. I am a firm believer in 'the good of the many outweighs the good of the few'.