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?
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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)
Dave Huff wrote: And before the war there were 'reliable' UN estimates of 5000 dead Iraqi's per month due to the sanctions. Actually - enough money was flowing into Iraq to feed the people. Saddam caused their deaths - not the sanctions. It is amazing that anyone would believe Saddam's lies. Imagine the following situation: A low-level drug dealer makes $1,000 a week dealing crack. The cops bust him and sentence him to 5 years probation. He is forced to get a job as part of his probation terms. Instead of feeding his children with the $200 a week he makes slinging burgers he buys malt liquor and weed. His child is reported to social services by a teacher. If you were to blame the USA for the starved Iraqis then you would also have to blame the police for stopping his drug dealing. You would believe that the drug dealer was a victim of the police and the police should not have stopped his drug dealing because he made lots of money and out of that money he bought food for his kid.
-
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
Christian Graus wrote: When one country goes against the wishes of the world community, So Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Spain, Italy... are not part of the world community. Or does the 'world community' have to include France and Germany to be morally pure? Christian Graus wrote: goes to war on another country sold to it's own people with deliberate lies Uh oh - I sense the old WMD argument. Based on pre-war intelligence - including that beloved 'morally correct' institution the UN - estimates - he had them. Where is the lie? Christian Graus wrote: when the leader of that country is more concerned with political points than justice Yeah nothing earns political points like putting your electorates sons and daughters lives on the line to eliminate a madman that is more of a direct threat to his own people and his neighbors than to your own. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
-
Dave Huff wrote: And before the war there were 'reliable' UN estimates of 5000 dead Iraqi's per month due to the sanctions. Actually - enough money was flowing into Iraq to feed the people. Saddam caused their deaths - not the sanctions. It is amazing that anyone would believe Saddam's lies. Imagine the following situation: A low-level drug dealer makes $1,000 a week dealing crack. The cops bust him and sentence him to 5 years probation. He is forced to get a job as part of his probation terms. Instead of feeding his children with the $200 a week he makes slinging burgers he buys malt liquor and weed. His child is reported to social services by a teacher. If you were to blame the USA for the starved Iraqis then you would also have to blame the police for stopping his drug dealing. You would believe that the drug dealer was a victim of the police and the police should not have stopped his drug dealing because he made lots of money and out of that money he bought food for his kid.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: If you were to blame the USA for the starved Iraqis then you would also have to blame the police for stopping his drug dealing. Which just goes to show you can prove anything with a ridiculously contrived example. Eco (Props to Joel)
-
Christian Graus wrote: When one country goes against the wishes of the world community, So Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Spain, Italy... are not part of the world community. Or does the 'world community' have to include France and Germany to be morally pure? Christian Graus wrote: goes to war on another country sold to it's own people with deliberate lies Uh oh - I sense the old WMD argument. Based on pre-war intelligence - including that beloved 'morally correct' institution the UN - estimates - he had them. Where is the lie? Christian Graus wrote: when the leader of that country is more concerned with political points than justice Yeah nothing earns political points like putting your electorates sons and daughters lives on the line to eliminate a madman that is more of a direct threat to his own people and his neighbors than to your own. Dave Huff In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. (Yogi Berra)
Dave Huff wrote: So Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Poland, Spain, Italy... are not part of the world community. Or does the 'world community' have to include France and Germany to be morally pure? The combination of Britain and Australia ( in both cases, HUGE public demonstrations illustrated that the actions of our leaders were overwhelmingly rejected by our populations ), and a handful of 2 bit countries just excited that the US knew they existed is hardly a representation of the world community. It's a representation mostly of Blair and Howard being pussies. Dave Huff wrote: I sense the old WMD argument. And why wouldn't you ? Dave Huff wrote: Yeah nothing earns political points like putting your electorates sons and daughters lives on the line to eliminate a madman that is more of a direct threat to his own people and his neighbors than to your own. Sadly, it actually does. But not surprising. I bet you anything that if W had managed to catch Bin Laden, Saddam would still be in power. This had nothing to do with liberation, hell you guys were at the door in 1992, why not liberate Iraq then, or any other time in the past 10 years ? Because 9/11 'changed things'. Yeah, W was not going to get back in if the people remembered that he couldn't catch the guy who did it.... Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
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.
any reason? or are you just spouting? ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
any reason? or are you just spouting? ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
Go back a couple of months to when you first posted that link. My opinions haven't changed.
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: If you were to blame the USA for the starved Iraqis then you would also have to blame the police for stopping his drug dealing. Which just goes to show you can prove anything with a ridiculously contrived example. Eco (Props to Joel)
Other than obvious factual differences (ie Saddam was a president, not a drug dealer), what flaws do you see in my analogy?
-
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)
Dave Huff wrote: Sewer and water restoration is also pretty well advanced. not everyone agrees. but let's assume you're right. now they're almost to the point they were at before we started bombing them. so, maybe sometime in the future things will actually be better (barring civil war, more terrorist attacks, violent outbursts over the fact that we've surrounded towns with barbed wire, etc). and that's the point of this thread, isn't it? : Based on this alone, does it justify the war? i say it doesn't. based on the rate at which we've killed Iraqis (and Americans) vs. the rate at which Saddam killed Iraqis (an no Americans), i say the war wasn't justified. come back in a year or so. ClickPic | ImgSource | CheeseWeasle
-
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 »
Daniel Ferguson wrote: 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. Actually Saddam's civil rights violations were mentioned in the same documents as Saddam's WMD (the ones that existed before the war but since they haven't been found yet means (to certain gullible ferfs) they never existed). They were parallel and equal bullet items. While it is true that the media replayed the WMD bullet item way more often than the civil rights bullet item, civil rights were listed as reason. And even if one of Bush's reasons for overthrowing Saddam wasn't civil rights, how does that change anything? Let's say I have a neighbor on my block who has already shot and killed a dozen people. I keep seeing him sticking his guns out the window and I constantly hear people screaming in anguish from inside his house. I finally say "Thats it!" and kick in the doors of his house. I search everywhere but I can't find him or his gun. But in the basement are 5 women who have been kidnapped and raped. They are now free. The murderer has lost his place of refuge. Well - I never found the gun! So what! I never found him either. Does that mean he never existed?!?! Who cares that the most publicised reason for my kicking down his doors was that I didn't like having guns pointed at me. The result is the same - rescued victims and no more maniac on my block.