Civilans killed in Iraq

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;41485 wrote:

Bomb targets Iraqis heading to shrine - Yahoo! News

just for trying to go to their place of worship. Notice they didn't target soliders, the target was innocent civilans only. So why then do you blame this on our country? "1,000,000 dead, thanks Bush": Well while that number is laughably inncorrect we should thank Bush because if not for our pressence during the reconstruction of Iraq the true number would be allot higher...

They wouldn't be dead at all had we just left Saddam in power. These people were killed for existing, Saddam only killed you if you challenged his authority.

Dealing with the here an now, if we leave Iraq, yes, a lot of people will die. Are you willing to bankrupt your nation and thus destroy it so that a massive civil war can simply be postponed? Make no mistake about it, tomorrow or twenty years from now, as soon as US forces leave, blood will soak the streets. The outcome is the same no matter what we do, so we either lose little, or lose big.

2 Replies

@Freeman15,

Freeman15;41495 wrote:

They wouldn't be dead at all had we just left Saddam in power.

meanwhile in reality land fewer Iraqi's die now then they did under Saddam or if we left tomorrow

87% Fewer Violent Deaths Annually in Iraq Now than under Saddam Hussein by by Mary Mostert

how about the 180K he killed in Northen Iraq?

WCBS NEWSRADIO 880 - Saddam Hussein Genocide Trial Resumes

your statement is so un-educated it's obtuse, and your defense is "who care about their lives, it's going to cost us money!"

that's sick, for better or worse we invaded Iraq, going forward does not include finger pointing and allowing our now obligation to fall away into civil war and genocide. It includes banding together as a country, and finishing the job. We leave tomorrow and we'll be back in 5 years away, I say we do it once.

4 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;41514 wrote:

meanwhile in reality land fewer Iraqi's die now then they did under Saddam or if we left tomorrow

87% Fewer Violent Deaths Annually in Iraq Now than under Saddam Hussein by by Mary Mostert

how about the 180K he killed in Northen Iraq?

WCBS NEWSRADIO 880 - Saddam Hussein Genocide Trial Resumes

your statement is so un-educated it's obtuse, and your defense is "who care about their lives, it's going to cost us money!"

that's sick, for better or worse we invaded Iraq, going forward does not include finger pointing and allowing our now obligation to fall away into civil war and genocide. It includes banding together as a country, and finishing the job. We leave tomorrow and we'll be back in 5 years away, I say we do it once.

Ok, what about cumulatively? Your source also comes from a website entitled "the conservative voice", so I wonder to which side of this issue they'll fall. Your source also counts twice 300,000 people (see points 9 and 10 on the list, they mean the same thing, simply worded differently) arrested by Saddam's security forces. Since you and I both know that many of the bodies in the mass graves were unidentifiable, no differentiation can be made between the 400,000 "never heard from again", and the 300,000 "disappeared". Further, the source lists deaths of non-Iraqis like 300,000 Iranians and Kurds involved in an uprising (we too would kill insurgents in our country). It is intellectually dishonest. Further, the Iraqi deaths resultant of the first Gulf War were because those Iraqis took up arms against Saddam in the belief that the UN/US coalition would aide them. WE let them go, and Saddam's army made quick work of them, as would be expected. We would kill insurgents as well were this our country.

So your source is ambiguous or possibly lying about 200,000 Iraqi deaths, throws in 300,000 Iranians to pad the end number, and then lists Iraqi deaths as a result of war and insurection. Saddam Huissein was a bad guy, I don't dispute that, AT ALL (nor have I ever), but the math in this source is misleading, and I would expect no less from a clearly biased source.

Your simplistic strawman doesn't mesh with logic. Answer me this question: Is a democratic and Westernized Iraq worth sacrificing American prosperity? Yes or no.

To date this war is the second most expensive thing on the Congressional agenda (right after social spending, an issue on which we agree), and we are being forced to sell our debt to rising idustrial nations like China to finance it. I want us out of Iraq because our presence in that country does not help us in any way, no matter how you slice it. No oil is coming to us, no security nada.

Would you then send US troops into North Korea? How about Darfur? Suffering occurs all over the world, the facts of life suck sometimes, but they're still facts. Where do we draw the line? Or would you like to see American troops in every impoverished, autocratic nation on the earth?

Oh, and then there's the little matter of the war being COMPLETELY UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

you critizie my sources, but yet you have none. How's your latest copy of catcher in the rye?

1 Reply

@Freeman15,

Freeman15;41495 wrote:

They wouldn't be dead at all had we just left Saddam in power. These people were killed for existing, Saddam only killed you if you challenged his authority.

Dealing with the here an now, if we leave Iraq, yes, a lot of people will die. Are you willing to bankrupt your nation and thus destroy it so that a massive civil war can simply be postponed? Make no mistake about it, tomorrow or twenty years from now, as soon as US forces leave, blood will soak the streets. The outcome is the same no matter what we do, so we either lose little, or lose big.

WRONG AGAIN Freeman15, he and his sons (as well as some of his sepical troops) took women and others just because they could and did what they wanted and because of their religon a woman who fought rape was killed. have you missed all the huge graves, the kurds storys in the north and the sunnies stories in the south.
Great post Silverchild79!!!!!!!!!
What does the truth have to do to get your attention? Run over you and back up and do it again? Now I mean that in a nice way Freeman15.

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;41547 wrote:

you critizie my sources, but yet you have none. How's your latest copy of catcher in the rye?

I'm not the one throwing numbers around, nor have I ever concerning Iraqi civilian deaths. I merely pointed out the hidden in plain view flaws in your source. Fact is, regardless of numbers, comparing death toll and oppression underour occupation to Saddam's rule and citing "we're better than him" is kind of sad. Well, I don't have AIDS, all I got was the clap, thank god.

You didn't answer my question though, so I'll repeat it (you probably just forgot to reply, no biggie):

Are you willing to sacrifice American prosperity to achieve a democratic and Westernized Iraq?

1 Reply

@mlurp,

mlurp;41553 wrote:

WRONG AGAIN Freeman15, he and his sons (as well as some of his sepical troops) took women and others just because they could and did what they wanted and because of their religon a woman who fought rape was killed. have you missed all the huge graves, the kurds storys in the north and the sunnies stories in the south.
Great post Silverchild79!!!!!!!!!
What does the truth have to do to get your attention? Run over you and back up and do it again? Now I mean that in a nice way Freeman15.

Saddam and his sons were brutal pricks, but indiscriminate car bombs weren't detonated on the streets during his term as autocrat. Fact is, these guys would be alive if Saddam were still in power because the bomb wouldn't have gone off. The guys planning to set off the bomb would've been arrested, tortured, and killed. I'm not saying I agree with those methods, but the fact of the matter is that without US involvement, the bomb doesn't go off. So you see, I used a cause/effect relationship to substantiate my claim, whereas you claim Saddam and his sons were brutal to Sunnis (actually, THEY were Sunnis).

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;41514 wrote:

theconservativevoice.com

LOL, yea, ok.

Quote:

how about the 180K he killed in Northen Iraq?

Human Rights Watch/Middle East puts the number between 50,000-100,000. Kurdish sources put the number higher, near you 180,000 figure. Of course all this comes back to your claim that my numbers can't be verified, but guess what that means for YOUR numbers...

Quote:

your statement is so un-educated it's obtuse, and your defense is "who care about their lives, it's going to cost us money!"

I personally, care more about America than Iraq, or Iraqis, do you?

Fact is we have turned Iraq into a ******* mess, and many, many people have died because of our actions, and many, many more will die because of our actions. People blather on about "Doing it right" but offer no plan, or realistic definition of what "right" is.

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Experts Doubt Drop In Violence in Iraq - washingtonpost.com

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Baghdad crackdown shifting violence? - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071222t.pdf

http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM44_070823iraq_nie_-_kj's_-_08-23-07.pdf

http://media.csis.org/isf.pdf

1,809 Iraqi civilians slain in Aug. - Conflict in Iraq - MSNBC.com

If you don't cherry-pick your news sources, you get a much different view.

1 Reply

@Freeman15,

Freeman15;41570 wrote:

I'm not the one throwing numbers around, nor have I ever concerning Iraqi civilian deaths.

so you didn't post this?

http://www.conflictingviews.com/t2031/

once again reality>you

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;41683 wrote:

so you didn't post this?

http://www.conflictingviews.com/t2031/

once again reality>you

Nope, that'd be FedUpAmerican. You have to look at the name on the post.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

okay you got me, you Ron Paulers all look the same to me

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

actually, fedupamerican selected Edwards in our mock election.

ConflictingViews - View Poll Results

try again?

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;41688 wrote:

okay you got me, you Ron Paulers all look the same to me

FedUp is not a Ron Paul supporter, and I'm sure he'd be nice enough to speak to his political ideology if ever he wanders into this thread.

So I leave it to you to address my concerns with your "source". I won't type them again, as they're on the same page.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

my source was proven in a court of law, I require no further evidence.

1 Reply

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;41704 wrote:

my source was proven in a court of law, I require no further evidence.

I must have missed the part where "theconservativevoice" listed a court case that declared violence in Iraq to have dropped 87%? I call bullshit on this one, since a tort would have had to have been committed for this matter to have gone before a judge at all, and the judge would've simply ruled on the tort, not the validity of the numbers.

Edit: Upon review I noticed you were referring to the Saddam trial where he was tried for the massacre of the Kurds and other crimes. Nobody disputes the fact that Saddam killed a lot of people, my issues are with points 9 and 10 of "theconservativevoice" article and the including of Kuwaitis and Iranians in the count of those killed under Saddam (you can't compare Iraqi deaths under Saddam and Iraqi deaths under Bush if Saddam starts off with a 300,000 man Iranian handicap). Further, the Kurds and Iraqis killed by military action were part of a failed rebellion, which as I said, we would have done the same thing (and did do from 1861-1865).

Further, you failed to address my concerns with the information provided by the article. Regardless of its derivation, the article adds the same number twice and throws in Iranian deaths to pad the count. Please refer to my earlier post.

I'm not trying to be a prick, I just would like you to clarify your source's information.

0 Replies

@Silverchild79,

the exact number is irrelevant, my point was to prove that Iraq's civilians were no safer under Saddam, possibly less safe. I think that was easily proven given the data I provided. I'm not saying civilians aren't dying, I'm not saying that isn't a horrible thing.

What I am saying is that blaming the US for Muslim on Muslim crime is like blaming white people for black on black crime. It neglects personal responsibility and any conclusion which doesn not encompass personal responsibility is dangerously ignorant. Even if we entered Iraq on bad intel, that guy decided he was going to kill innocent people, and you can't blame that on Bush anymore then you can claim the VT shooting was Bush's fault

2 Replies

@Silverchild79,

Silverchild79;41726 wrote:

the exact number is irrelevant, my point was to prove that Iraq's civilians were no safer under Saddam, possibly less safe. I think that was easily proven given the data I provided. I'm not saying civilians aren't dying, I'm not saying that isn't a horrible thing.

What I am saying is that blaming the US for Muslim on Muslim crime is like blaming white people for black on black crime. It neglects personal responsibility and any conclusion which doesn not encompass personal responsibility is dangerously ignorant. Even if we entered Iraq on bad intel, that guy decided he was going to kill innocent people, and you can't blame that on Bush anymore then you can claim the VT shooting was Bush's fault

The exact number is most certainly relevant, because your source claims that violence in Iraq has dropped 87% since the invasion (you still haven't addressed my concerns). Until we know exactly how many Iraqis have died since the invasion (liberal estimates says 1million, unlikely but possible), we won't know who is responsible for more deaths. The figures presented in your source are blatantly false and academically dishonest in their recording.

Yes, we are responsible for the muslim on muslim violence in Iraq because we created the situation in which it occurs. Car bombs and erratic gunfire eruptions didn't happen under Saddam's rule, so while yes he killed people, the civilian population suffered fewer casualties than they do now. Your source also ignores the fact that Saddam had 20 years to cause death and mayhem, while we have had only 4.

You also have still failed to answer my question from another thread, so I'll repost it here:

Are you willing to sacrifice American prosperity for a democratic and Westernized Iraq?

0 Replies

Civilans killed in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know