Note that we still aren't sure exactly how many Iraqis were killed, and the latest estimates by the Iraqi government (which include unidentified bodies) are actually relatively low.
Sure, the invasion is definitely justified if only 100,000 people died, instead of 300,000. Seriously, EMFM, trusting the Iraqi gov't to take objective estimates is like trusting the USSR to reveal the number of Chornobyl death count... The Iraqi governments always publishes the lowest casualty figures that no-one but them accept. Is it just a coincidence that out of all the major efforts to tally casualties the official Iraqi ones are always the lowest?
BTW, the same Iraqi government of yours reported in 2007 a total of five million orphans. Undoubtedly they understated the figure. Undoubtedly, since then the number increased, as we are nearing 2010. Five million is about half the Iraqi children. And you can bet they receive the best care available if you read about the Al-Hanan orphanage (you guessed it right; I am being sarcastic - orphans were shown on photos lying on the floor naked, with no food for weeks, sick and nearly dying).
As we all know, many children from orphanages grow up mentally unstable or deficient (low IQ) due to the lack of care they received. Most go straight to crime after getting out. Bright future for Iraq, eh? And if five million children are orphans (probably six by now), my bet it that the Iraq gov't figure of 92,000-100,000 people dead is preposterously low.
Just think about it. Out of those 100,000, how many are too old or too young to have children? How many are single or already childless before the war? How many out of the 100,000 were parents? And both of the parents have to be dead for a child to be classified as an orphan. So if out of the 100,000 total, 40-50k were parents, then what are the chances that both of the child's parents died?
Therefore, there is no way 92,000-100,000 dead correlate with 5-6 million (at least) orphans. Simple logic. Even with non-war-related orphans, that many orphans are not explainable or supported by the Iraqi war casualties.
I would like to see you justify the invasion with this in mind, EMFM. If you are as old as you claim, why do you then dismiss the casualties with such typically teenage manner? Usually, adults are incredibly squeamish when dealing with dead people. For a good reason perhaps. Look at Don Corleone reacting to Kadgar_AV's remark about that burned boy. That reaction was typical, the same as my parents, and all the other normal adults I have seen and heard, would say.
Last edited by Aemilius Paulus; 10-18-2009 at 19:43. Reason: spelling
That only further emphasizes the point that we have no idea how many Iraqis were killed, how many were killed at the hands of Americans, and how many more were killed at the hands of other Iraqis and so-called "freedom fighters." No, we don't know yet if Iraq was worth it, and we won't know until we know how many casualties there were and until we know if Iraq can become a stable democracy. I believe it can. Therefore, I believe that the Iraq War - perhaps not in terms of financial cost, but in terms of morality - was a necessary and positive thing.
I didn't say how old I was, and I did not dismiss the casualties. When one discusses war, one must discuss casualties as part of the cost:benefit ratio. While every individual death is a tragedy - you joined this forum too late to have seen some of my older posts on the matter, especially when dealing with the Second World War - war is also a reality, and yes, it can occasionally be "worth it."If you are as old as you claim, why do you then dismiss the casualties with such typically teenage manner?
Last edited by Evil_Maniac From Mars; 10-18-2009 at 19:44.
Average number of children per mother in Iraq is 3.86
So 5 million kids would require 1.3 million mums. And another 1.3 million dads (assuming 1 wife per husband).
With orphans requiring both parents to be dead (or missing) there would have to be at least 2.6 million dead or MIA parents.
+ extended families
+ single parent survivors
Would all add more to the mix.
Yep. And what is that for? What has US and "Coalition" achieved? How is all this blood better than the days of Saddam? Let me use the same cost:benefit principle against you, EMFM: According to Human Rights Watch, the Kurds lost between 50,000 and 100,000 people. Compare that to the whole country devastated, destabilised, orphaned, and polluted.
And unlike the story with the Kurds, everyone is dying, and not just some separatist minorities with a penchant for violent, unjustified terrorism - PKK (not just in Iraq either - they love clobbering Turkey as well). Not to mention, we all know former President Bush did not invade Iraq to save the Kurds. If he was that well-intentioned, he could have invaded Sudan and at the same time destroy the terrorist nest breeding there. Which Iraq did not have, as Saddam both hated and feared such extremist organisations, especially Bin Laden, with whom he had personal scores.
Honestly, how many Iraqis would rather endure the invasion as opposed to enduring Saddam? I bet the vast majority would go with Saddam. Easier for you to say, EMFM, as you have not felt the fires of Western wrath on your skin.
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pintenOriginally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
"And if the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war." - William Tecumseh Sherman
“The market, like the Lord, helps those who help themselves. But unlike the Lord, the market does not forgive those who know not what they do.” - Warren Buffett
Last edited by Vladimir; 10-20-2009 at 17:12.
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pintenOriginally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
i think it was the constant fear of nuclear annihilation based off the trigger fingers of sometimes egocentric men that made people want to leave the cold war era behind.
and AP what about the morals of removing saddam from power. Maybe it killed more people but morally it was the correct thing to do. americans (the vast majority) do not want iraqis to die.
Last edited by Centurion1; 10-21-2009 at 01:02. Reason: i made a crucial order mistake.
Last edited by Ice; 10-21-2009 at 01:06.
that it would be wrong to allow someone like Saddam who unquestionably committed crimes against humanity and as such he had to be removed from power.Could you expand on that logic?
What if in WW2 the Japanese had not attacked us and we had never retaliated. would this have been okay even though the Japanese commited such atrocities in areas like China? Perhaps in the long term it would have saved lives. Would it have been morally correct.
AP is a logical person and would probably rebut my comment with an argument of ethics and that if less people die in one scenario than it is always better to go with the less costly price to human life.
I am simply saying that occaisonally ethics fail and what is morally (not ethically) correct is the proper course of action to take.
Sure, the Iraq War was a correct thing to do. But that is poppycock. Bollox. Balderdash. No one justifies actions with "in the beginning it was the right thing to do". For one, there is a rationale behind the quote "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Secondly, simply a good causus belli does not justify the war itself. War can start in any manner and it can be carried out equally unpredictably. Since I frankly do not have enough time nor enthusiasm to go off into history, logic, or politics, I will simply say this:
Do the Iraqis want it? You cannot simply start a war in a sovereign country for no good reason and call it just simply because you "wanted to improve Iraq". Which US never did. George Bush, for all he cared, could have wiped his rear with the reports on Iraqi welfare. He did not wish to improve Iraq. Well, not for Iraqis. He wanted to improve Iraq for US, in a manner that would benefit US, and not Iraq. Not that President Bush was a lousy President. Every other modern President did practically the same thing, regardless of their party. Some had better excuses, some worse.
Iraq is suffering. More than they would ever under Saddam. They do not want the US. No state in the Middle East wanted US in Iraq, not even Iran, despite their hate of Iraq. Kuwait was likely to have been the only truly content party in this enterprise.
Ugh, people always sicken me when they justify Iraq War. Nothing personal, Centurion, I am speaking about the (mainly non-far left) population in general - it is just that those people are usually Americans or Western Europeans, who have never felt the slightest hardship - and by hardship I mean hardship by World definition, and not by US/Western Europe definition. I am no hippy, in fact I am a war hawk. But I do not even imagine that the current wars are just. They are loads of manure, and all they result in is human suffering. That is all.
Westerners, especially Americans never felt a war. Neither have I. But I do not strut around proclaiming interventionist wars are just. Even if they are just, that is no reason to support them. How can you speak of human beings as numbers when one will defecate and urinate over one self’s pants at the mere sound of a bomb detonating? When one faints over the sight of blood and goes into a depression when a close relative peacefully des of old age?? How dare does the West justify the misery that a fraction of which they would never endure themselves? Six million orphans and a couple of more million dead? Yeah, sure, why not - look what Iraq got now - and (instable) Democracy!!! Yayyyy!
Too bad the Iraqi democracy is not worth the paper the ballots used to elect it are printed on… If US pulls out completely, like certain selfish, cowardly Americans now want (hey, I am all for non-involvement in Iraq, but once you step into the manure, you have to clean it up… - which is why I so passionately dislike the Americans who wanted the war in the beginning but now advocate rapid timetables for withdrawal) , Iraqi government will either collapse or continue on as a crony democracy, mired with more corruption than the all the years of Saddam put together. That form of government is so commonplace that it has become the standard of democracy by now…
EDIT: and no, I did not support the Georgian War from the moral point of view either, before someone screams "Bloody murder: a hypocrite!!!1!"
Last edited by Aemilius Paulus; 10-21-2009 at 02:51. Reason: font formatting
Aemilius old chap, I don't want to rain on your bombast, but there are several members of this very forum who are veterans from a number of wars. At least one has a son serving in a war theatre.
Some might speak for the war in Iraq, some are implacably against. But they speak with some authority on war and its impact.
Just a word to the wise.![]()
"If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
Albert Camus "Noces"
actually he did, but not for the iraqi's themselves, but rather american foriegn policy. the one thing american foriegn policy want above all else is long-term political and social stability in the region of the world that controls the future of sustained US growth.
a stable nation of the size of iraq in the heart of the middle middle east where social tensions can be released via politics rather than exported as aggressive nationalism will inevitably improve the condition of the region, maintaining more stable petroleum prices and thus enabling long term US growth free from dangerous petroleum shocks to its economy.
that is tough nuts for iraq, they are a small nation at the heart of a region with the ability to destabilise the future of american economic growth, a nation that was part of the cause of the problem by the nationalist belligerence to its neighbours.
iraq was chosen because it was determined that:
1. it was a nation where long term stabilising change could be effected to the benefit of the US
2. it was a nation that was generally hostile to the US and its allies
3. it was a nation that provided the sympathetic excuse of internal tyranny
4. it was a nation that provided the legal excuse of illegal WMD programs
5. it was a secular arab nation where the US could publicly fight and crush islamic extremism
of the above only 1 and 5 matter, they were convergent aims that were pleasingly bolstered by 2 3 and 4.
Ugh, people who always write-off the value of a free iraq always sicken me, but maybe that's because i have lived in a dictatorship where people could be dragged off and killed at the whim of the government, and have had family friends suffer this fate.
Last edited by Furunculus; 10-21-2009 at 10:03.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
I understand your point, but most opponents of the war don't really have a problem with the value of a free Iraq. The main issues tend to be:
Freeing Iraq from dictatorship was not the reason given to the electorates and parliaments of the countries asked to sacrifice their sons and daughters. Apart from leaders knowing full well that regime change is illegal, would those parliaments have backed a war for such a reason? Most unlikely.
For most of Iraqis to date, they have merely exchanged one relatively predictable and dangerous environment for a newly unpredictable and dangerous environment. This is getting slightly better under a significant occupation, but it would be rather optimistic to predict that it will continue to improve once the coalition leaves.
The noble cause of dictatorship removal appears to be very selective. Saddam was Our Dictator of the Month several years running when he brutalised his people in fighting Iran. Then we went off him when he invaded another bunch of favoured dictators. The truth is, there are plenty of dictatorships current that make Saddam look like a Disney baddie, but they we befriend or ignore for assorted reasons.
Claiming national interest, realpolitik or other base but understandable reasons for starting the war is a perfectly intelligent stance to take. Pretending it was ever the principled removal of a dictator is as disingenuous as the WMD claim.
"If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
Albert Camus "Noces"
1. no, but i was happy to see it done, and would have been happy to see it argued on the basis of real-politic, particularly given that the fringe benefit was the removal of tyranny.
2. true, and we certainly made an utter balls up of the occupation (starting with calling it a liberation) that nearly put paid to sympathetic excuse of improving lives, however i disagree that the country will not maintain an upward trend post occupation.
3. correct, but i have no problem with that, why should we expend blood and treasure sorting out someone else's problems unless they relate to our own, or there is some pay-off?
4. quite, as you can see above i have not deviated from the argument that it was done for reasons of national interest, the negative impact of which was to be tempered by the humanitarian fringe benefits. for the sake of self honesty, and not having to contort ones self after the fact, i wish they had argued on this basis in the first place rather than over emphasize WMD's.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
on a separate note; Der Spiegel has a very good article that deals with the Non Proliferation Treaty and some of the myths that surround it:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...656171,00.html
well worth a read.
Last edited by Furunculus; 10-21-2009 at 12:00.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
As you said AP the thing i find most disgraceful about this whole conflict is not the war itself (be it made up causes or not) but the people who want to retreat in defeat after such short term goals. Personally i thought that Iraq was a much easier war to win compared to Afghanistan so if we HAD to leave one i would elect Afghanistan. Besides being more important the populace is more similar to ours and because they are more technologically advanced and most of the populace lives in one area (between the rivers) it would be easier to control the area.
As to not understanding war i think i have had a pretty deep impact on it. 2 of my cousins are marines and fighting in Afghanistan another cousin just returned from being a navy medic in Iraq. My father was a commander in the navy and flew jets and flew missions during desert storm. I myself am probably going to attend the USMA (West Point). since i was very young i have wanted to be a military officer. i also live in a military town and see men get deployed all the time. My friends father just returned from Iraq after an entire year. Another family friends son a lance corporal in the marine corp just died. The woman down the streets fiance a sergeant in the army was killed by insurgents in Iraq. My great uncle died in Vietnam and my grandfather lost the tips of his fingers a paratrooper in WW2. I have a proud military tradition on both sides of my family and want to join myself. Maybe i haven't seen my home blown up but i HAVE known men killed in war whom i knew personally.
What have you experienced about war????
One thing I’ve always advocated about Iraq is that it’s the better of the two to affect our long-term strategic goals. This statement by the Russians is more of a near-to short-term attempt to do the same thing.
Reinvent the British and you get a global finance center, edible food and better service. Reinvent the French and you may just get more Germans.
Ik hou van ferme grieten en dikke pintenOriginally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Down with dried flowers!
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Bookmarks