Printable View
Bah, the estimates I've seen are ranging from just under 100k up to over 300k.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
And yes, I am of course talking about people. Not just american soldiers. Funnily, I care about other humans too....
But hey, aas far as I know, "casualty" means everyone not able to fight on(ie. including wounded), not just those killed... So if we're talking about that, the figure is likely to be at least 300k...
Um, why? In the absence of verifiable numbers, with neither the Iraqi government nor the coalition forces counting Iraqi deaths, and with documented fatalities pushing 100k, why would 300k be "absurd"? The ethnic cleansing has been very intense, by all reputable accounts. Whole neighborhoods and towns have become Shia-only or Sunni-only or Kurd-only, and neither we nor the Iraqi guv have been able to put that dragon back in the bottle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
There have been a lot of casualty numbers batted around. I would think carefully, and back up my argument before labeling one "absurd."
I just do not believe that the number has reached 300k. Maybe i am wrong and there are many things the US government is covering up. for example, the contractors (mercenaries) are not recorded.
The claim that i dont consider iraqi citizens as human is both hurtful and unjust to claim. Just because i do not believe that 300000 people have died yet does not mean i think that those people are less than human.
I don't think the US killed 300k people. But the argument is about how many have died violently since the invasion of Iraq - whether killed by Coalition armies, the Iraqi army, insurgents or militias. To the best of my knowledge, the US government does not cover up Iraqi casualties, it just refuses to try to count them. This makes it conveniently easy to shout down high estimates as lacking evidence. My government - the UK - does exactly the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
I suspect that if the coalition forces in Iraq before and Afghanistan/Pakistan attempted to keep tract of civilian deaths, they would be far more effective. Killing the people you are trying to save is not smart and the first step in trying to avoid it is knowing that you are doing it.
Not just that, you would also have to count the people who have died because of suicides(seeing your family ripped to shreds is rather hard), hunger/poverty, lack of medical treatment, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
@Centurion1: The comment on "Iraqi's are humans too" wasn't meant to imply that you didn't think of them as humans, of course.
As for you not believing it's 300k, well, that's just something we just don't know. But we know it's at least about 90k. And we know that a lot of deaths go unrecorded. Is it 100k extra? 200k? 300k? We don't know, and we are unlikely to ever know. But that's where the estimates are. Between just below 100k and above 300k have died. Just where that "between" is, isn't something we can figure out. But 300k is as likely, based on the facts we have, as 100k.
Iraq Body Count has it at roughly 100 000 recorded civilian casualty estimate. However, this is only RECORD deaths and as such the actual number is likely to be far higher. Other estimations, for instance had the casualty figures at 100 000 during 2004.
Found a few more sources for casualties. Here is a peer reviewed survey that estimates 151 000 before May 2006. In fact, just look at this wiki page.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Who's counting, perfectly possible that it are 300k by now. But so what really, would have happened at some point anyway. Terrible and all that but at least the country has a chance, I am not going to nod at the idea that they are worse of than they were previously. It's all there for them to screw up, they seem to be doing great at that so far.
Wait... what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
They are kinda killing eachother, didn't you knowQuote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
I believe that fragony means that under the leadership of saddam Hussein in time he may have ended up killing 300k of his own people. I dont know if that would happen but he did kill many people.
hore Tore, I agree it is stupid to try to pin down a number. I may think they are less than 300k and you may believe they are more, it doesnt matter unless we know the truth. Oh and originally i thought you were talking about US casualties. My mistake
Honestly, what's the whole point of this? Because one dude among millions writes a column titled "Thank You America', the invasion suddenly becomes a success?
Call it a godwin, but people thanked Nazi Germany when they invaded Europe. Then people thanked USSR when the red army 'freed' Europe. I'm pretty sure I could find dozens of newspapers from various countries with columns such as "Thank you Mr. Hitler".
My point obviously is not that USA = Nazi Germany or USSR, but rather that you'll always find people supporting foreign invaders, for a whole lot of reasons (sometimes good ones, sometimes bad ones. In this case, the guy obviously has a point).
Now, where are the 'many other Iraqis' who are glad the US invaded their country? Do you have any poll, any statistics? 'cause otherwise, I fear I'll keep thinking the invasion was and is an epic failure that created more harm than good.
Think about the children!!!
Seriously though the children love americans........ Of course for some of them america has been their all their lives.
You gonna post a source for that? Random claims are not going to convince me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Well it was half joking but if you want sources....
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57359
Yeah i think the key thing is that they are used to the soldiers. and lets be honest while there have been a few isolated incidents of violence by American soldiers, the vast majority are just kids themselves or have kids back at home. i mean compared to the average insurgent i bet the Americans who give them candy and stuff do seem like pretty nice guys.
He did, but much of the killing seems to have been either during the Iraq-Iran War or in the aftermath of the first Iraq war. I think when wars start, the gloves start to come off as regimes are fighting for their survival and seem themselves taking extreme measures (examples of this include the Terror of the French revolution and the Holocaust). Saddam was still a brutal dictator in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, but I don't think Iraqis were being killed at anything like the rate they were a decade or two earlier - or after the invasion. He had cowed his people - and was also under extreme international pressure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
There's a separate debate about indirect deaths during the period of sanctions etc, but they may be even harder to estimate than violent deaths.
Perhaps, but it's far from a certainty. The terrible rate of killings after the invasion seem to be due to a breakdown of authority. The allies disbanded the Ba'ath security apparatus and the Iraqi army, but did not put anything effective in its place until - perhaps - recently. I think that gave the insurgents and the militias the space they needed to cause havoc. It's possible alternative post-Saddam scenarios would have lead to similar or worse (open civil war), but my hunch is that would have been unlikely. I suspect who ever emerged as top dog - whether another strong man or a more democratic regime - they would have had the police and army still in play to prevent the chaos we saw in Iraq. Places like the much of the former Communist bloc and South Africa have managed seemingly more difficult transitions with less bloodshed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
To my knowledge he had already killed more than three hundred thousand by the time he was desposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurion1
Well there you go, it was a dirty job, but it needed to be done. I don't care who you are, you can't support Hussein with a good conscience
In the 30 years and two wars he was in power, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
The point isn't about how many he had killed - it's about how many more he was capable of killing.
So I'm going to throw in a Godwin and say that if Hitler had finished the Holocaust and the war you would rather us keep him in power than despose of him? No thanks. Hussein had to go, just like Hitler had to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I think its a little different killing 300k + in over 30 years than in 6 (2003 invasion ?) not that Saddam is somehow better than America (he's worse)
A big part of the reason for these excessive casualties is the mess the coalition forces made of the after invasion, which leans more towards incompetence than malice... not that that is paticularly comforting for the family's of the dead...
Yep, but in the end Saddam was hanged for killing 200-something people, not 300,000+. Go figure...
Most of the dead in Iraq were not killed by the coalition, but rather by insurgents. If I owned a chain of stores and one was robbed, I might be upset at the manager for not providing adequate security for his location (presuming I had given him the responsibility), but the actual blame for the robbery should lie with the offender and him or her only.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
If you're trying to say the allegations were made up, you get a :dizzy2:.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
How long would it have taken to try him for every single seperate incident of murder or mass murder? Too long.
Taking into account the populational growth in Iraq ever since Homo Georgicus began populating Iraq, along with the end of the Würm glacation triggered the first great leap in human demographics in Iraq. Coupled with the exponential growth triggered by the introduction of farming practices among Iraq, followed by the posterior inventions like irrigation and better tools managed to increase the population limit of Iraq to new limits. Due to the gigantic number of humans living in Iraq and the lack of coordination amongst them, it was there that the first states were born, as a means of organizing ex-tribes into a coordinated living. Afterwards, humans never stopped inventing new ways to exploit the land and agriculture, which lead to a continuous increase in agricultural output, with all its relevant consequences in the impact of Iraqi demographics. As such, nowadays the population of Iraq is greater than ever was.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Taking into account all the humans that died ever since Homo Georgicus first settled in Iraq, puts the current death toll in Iraq at a colossal range of 2-3 Billion deaths.
I'm not trying to say anything, just stating the facts. Maybe the court decided to take a random sample of less than 0.1% deaths, I don't know... Didn't watch the trial...Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
My apologies then, but if one instance of mass murder is enough to get him the death penalty, why bother with so many more trials? Each trial comes at a cost to the court system and the government when Iraq desperately needs money, and there are only so many death sentences a judge can effectively had down...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Most of the dead in Iraq were not killed by the coalition, but rather by insurgents.
Yes, and there was an insurgency because of the invasion and probably because of the strategy they used for the after invasion. I wasn't rating them in terms of evilness just taking into account the timeframe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
You are welcome. And I will gladly accept Allah in return for the ability to marry numerous wives. Just don't ask me to blow myself up. And I didn't go to church, nor will I go to a mosque. And don't ask me to do anything that rhymes with "prostate". And I still like the Juden, so nyah. And I won't stop drinking. ever. Erm. Nevermind. I'll just have multiple girlfriends. Yay! Your welcome anyway.
That is too good DA. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
I think we should add one proviso: You still ain't gettin' my Budweiser, and oh yeah, that oil? Well give that back when you people can sit down at the peace table with each other like good little boys and girls and talk about it. Until then,
Piss up a rope!
Your welcome.
The rest of the paragraph you quoted is basically my response to your point here.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly