Gallup Poll
-
A Gallup poll[^] shows that Saddam may have executed 61,000 residents of Baghdad. In his 23 year reign that comes out to 7.2 executions per day and that only includes those from Baghdad. Since the start of the war approximately 450 US soldiers have died or about 2 per day. Based on this alone, does it justify the war?
-
A Gallup poll[^] shows that Saddam may have executed 61,000 residents of Baghdad. In his 23 year reign that comes out to 7.2 executions per day and that only includes those from Baghdad. Since the start of the war approximately 450 US soldiers have died or about 2 per day. Based on this alone, does it justify the war?
Brian Gideon wrote: Since the start of the war approximately 450 US soldiers have died or about 2 per day. and how many Iraqis have died since the start of the war? this site says between 8000 and 10000 civilian deaths; apparently nobody cares how many Iraqi military deaths there have been. do the math. extrapolate to 23 years. *Edit* and remember. those 9000 iraqi civilian dead... we killed them, not Saddam */Edit* [anyone who votes this a 1 is objectively in favor of dead iraqi civilians] ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Brian Gideon wrote: Since the start of the war approximately 450 US soldiers have died or about 2 per day. and how many Iraqis have died since the start of the war? this site says between 8000 and 10000 civilian deaths; apparently nobody cares how many Iraqi military deaths there have been. do the math. extrapolate to 23 years. *Edit* and remember. those 9000 iraqi civilian dead... we killed them, not Saddam */Edit* [anyone who votes this a 1 is objectively in favor of dead iraqi civilians] ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Yes, but now that the US are there, deaths of Iraqi's don't count. I noticed that as soon as I read the top post. And I love how a *poll* can tell how many people Saddam killed. I have this image of a guy in a shopping mall asking 'how many people do YOU think Saddam killed'...... Did I miss something, or was poll just a poor choice of words in the original article ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Brian Gideon wrote: Since the start of the war approximately 450 US soldiers have died or about 2 per day. and how many Iraqis have died since the start of the war? this site says between 8000 and 10000 civilian deaths; apparently nobody cares how many Iraqi military deaths there have been. do the math. extrapolate to 23 years. *Edit* and remember. those 9000 iraqi civilian dead... we killed them, not Saddam */Edit* [anyone who votes this a 1 is objectively in favor of dead iraqi civilians] ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
And before the war there were 'reliable' UN estimates of 5000 dead Iraqi's per month due to the sanctions. So doesn't that mean that with the war over and the sanctions lifted the US has saved over 50,000 Iraqi civilians already? Do the math. Extrapolate to 23 years. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
Brian Gideon wrote: Since the start of the war approximately 450 US soldiers have died or about 2 per day. and how many Iraqis have died since the start of the war? this site says between 8000 and 10000 civilian deaths; apparently nobody cares how many Iraqi military deaths there have been. do the math. extrapolate to 23 years. *Edit* and remember. those 9000 iraqi civilian dead... we killed them, not Saddam */Edit* [anyone who votes this a 1 is objectively in favor of dead iraqi civilians] ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Chris Losinger wrote: this site says between 8000 and 10000 civilian deaths I've seen estimates as high as 50,000. Either way the war-related or lawlessness-related mortality rate is likely to drop in time making long term extrapolations too high. Presumably, the base line mortality rates should decline as the oil-rich state falls more in line with other states with similar resources. Chris Losinger wrote: apparently nobody cares how many Iraqi military deaths there have been This is a good point. I would consider a lot of the Iraqi military as innocent casualties. Some, if not most, did not want to fight.
-
And before the war there were 'reliable' UN estimates of 5000 dead Iraqi's per month due to the sanctions. So doesn't that mean that with the war over and the sanctions lifted the US has saved over 50,000 Iraqi civilians already? Do the math. Extrapolate to 23 years. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
ok, sanctions are gone. but that's not all that happened. now we have to figure out how many iraqis are dying because of poor living conditions caused by our bombs, not just those killed directly by our bombs. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
Yes, but now that the US are there, deaths of Iraqi's don't count. I noticed that as soon as I read the top post. And I love how a *poll* can tell how many people Saddam killed. I have this image of a guy in a shopping mall asking 'how many people do YOU think Saddam killed'...... Did I miss something, or was poll just a poor choice of words in the original article ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
And before the war there were 'reliable' UN estimates of 5000 dead Iraqi's per month due to the sanctions. So doesn't that mean that with the war over and the sanctions lifted the US has saved over 50,000 Iraqi civilians already? Do the math. Extrapolate to 23 years. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
*I* get it - the sanctions couldn't be lifted unless new ways were found to kill Iraqi civilians ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Christian Graus wrote: And I love how a *poll* can tell how many people Saddam killed. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
Apparently they stopped people in the street and asked if Saddam had killed a relative, then extrapolated to the countries population. Idiots. At least two problems: 1. Who is to say you didn't stop five people who were all related to one who was killed ? 2. On what level do we assume these people were all telling the truth ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
A Gallup poll[^] shows that Saddam may have executed 61,000 residents of Baghdad. In his 23 year reign that comes out to 7.2 executions per day and that only includes those from Baghdad. Since the start of the war approximately 450 US soldiers have died or about 2 per day. Based on this alone, does it justify the war?
The funny thing about this 'saving Iraqis' business is that I don't remember Bush & Blair saying "We have to go into Iraq to save the citizens and prevent saddam from killing them. We have to put billions of your tax dollars into Iraq to build democracy. It is our goal to bring freedom and democracy to every brutal dictatorship on earth*!" In fact, what I do rememeber is "We have to prevent saddam from using Weapons of Mass Destruction in terrorist attacks like 9/11!" Well, that's been accomplished nicely, nothing to do with the fact that there were no WMDs of course :rolleyes:. Bush couldn't possibly have lied about his motives, could he? Not to us, I mean, we're much to smart to be taken in that easily. Aren't we?? But since Bush has apparently become a soft-hearted social activist (will he be growing dreadlocks anytime soon?), when can we expect the next country to be 'liberated from a corrupt regime**'? * At least those with large oil reserves. ** You know, one of those dirty third world countries where the government gives all the fat contracts to their friends. *** This rant was brought to you by two cups of coffee on an empty stomach -- I'm off to get something to eat, cheers. </rant>
« eikonoklastes »
-
The funny thing about this 'saving Iraqis' business is that I don't remember Bush & Blair saying "We have to go into Iraq to save the citizens and prevent saddam from killing them. We have to put billions of your tax dollars into Iraq to build democracy. It is our goal to bring freedom and democracy to every brutal dictatorship on earth*!" In fact, what I do rememeber is "We have to prevent saddam from using Weapons of Mass Destruction in terrorist attacks like 9/11!" Well, that's been accomplished nicely, nothing to do with the fact that there were no WMDs of course :rolleyes:. Bush couldn't possibly have lied about his motives, could he? Not to us, I mean, we're much to smart to be taken in that easily. Aren't we?? But since Bush has apparently become a soft-hearted social activist (will he be growing dreadlocks anytime soon?), when can we expect the next country to be 'liberated from a corrupt regime**'? * At least those with large oil reserves. ** You know, one of those dirty third world countries where the government gives all the fat contracts to their friends. *** This rant was brought to you by two cups of coffee on an empty stomach -- I'm off to get something to eat, cheers. </rant>
« eikonoklastes »
-
ok, sanctions are gone. but that's not all that happened. now we have to figure out how many iraqis are dying because of poor living conditions caused by our bombs, not just those killed directly by our bombs. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Except that living conditions are improving rapidly - electricity is already more reliable and more widely available now than before the war. Sewer and water restoration is also pretty well advanced. Also the coalition is replacing and updating the crumbling pre-war infrastructure. Thousands of projects have been completed throughout the country and life for the ordinary Iraqi is probably comparable or better now than before the war (except that they no longer worry about 'disappearing' relatives). Hundreds of thousands of children have been innoculated, the drained swamps are being refilled, hundreds of independent newspapers have sprung up, and a host of other positives. Were Iraqi civilians killed during the war? Yes. Is the Iraqi population better off now than before the war? Yes. On balance would more Iraqis be dead if Saddam were left in power? I believe yes. You can go on griping about civilian casualties all you want but on balance the Iraqis are now better off than before. Just ask the ones protesting the ongoing terror campaigns from last week that included people who lost loved ones to the war and the others who lost limbs and sight. They obviously feel a little differently than you do. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
*I* get it - the sanctions couldn't be lifted unless new ways were found to kill Iraqi civilians ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Yes, but now that the US are there, deaths of Iraqi's don't count. I noticed that as soon as I read the top post. And I love how a *poll* can tell how many people Saddam killed. I have this image of a guy in a shopping mall asking 'how many people do YOU think Saddam killed'...... Did I miss something, or was poll just a poor choice of words in the original article ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Even I who don't speak English natively thought it sounded weird. -- I can't resist a touch of evil.
-
No you don't get it. The sanctions couldn't be lifted while Iraq was in the clutches of a fucking madman. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: The sanctions couldn't be lifted while Iraq was in the clutches of a f***ing madman. So they're still in place then ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Dave Huff wrote: The sanctions couldn't be lifted while Iraq was in the clutches of a f***ing madman. So they're still in place then ? Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Brian Gideon wrote: Since the start of the war approximately 450 US soldiers have died or about 2 per day. and how many Iraqis have died since the start of the war? this site says between 8000 and 10000 civilian deaths; apparently nobody cares how many Iraqi military deaths there have been. do the math. extrapolate to 23 years. *Edit* and remember. those 9000 iraqi civilian dead... we killed them, not Saddam */Edit* [anyone who votes this a 1 is objectively in favor of dead iraqi civilians] ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Somehow I knew you would add another link to that sorry excuse of a website. No sane person is stupid enough to believe that site.
-
Christian Graus wrote: So they're still in place then ? Do you honestly believe they are even remotely comparable? Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
No, but it was an easy shot to take. I think that Saddam was a madman and it's a shame that he couldn't be taken out in a way that was not morally bankrupt. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
No, but it was an easy shot to take. I think that Saddam was a madman and it's a shame that he couldn't be taken out in a way that was not morally bankrupt. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
Christian Graus wrote: morally bankrupt. Why do you see it as morally bankrupt? Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: Why do you see it as morally bankrupt? When one country goes against the wishes of the world community, goes to war on another country sold to it's own people with deliberate lies, when the leader of that country is more concerned with political points than justice, one has to wonder which step of the process *isn't* morally bankrupt. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder