Thank You America

[CountArach]

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.

[CountArach]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[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?

[Fragony]

Wait... what?

They are kinda killing eachother, didn't you know

[Centurion1]

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

[econ21]

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.

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.

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.

But so what really, would have happened at some point anyway.

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.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

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.

To my knowledge he had already killed more than three hundred thousand by the time he was desposed.

[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

[HoreTore]

To my knowledge he had already killed more than three hundred thousand by the time he was desposed.

In the 30 years and two wars he was in power, sure.

The point isn't about how many he had killed - it's about how many more he was capable of killing.

[Meneldil]

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.

[Centurion1]

Think about the children!!!

Seriously though the children love americans........ Of course for some of them america has been their all their lives.

[CountArach]

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.