Iraqi group claims over 37,000 civilian toll

[member 5645]

Good grief. This is pathetic.

Wow, like a Pavlovian dog. I enter the thread, you degrade into this.

Sort of takes the sport out of it all, doesn't it?

 

[Artman]

Well that works too.
It seems everyone,except the complete nutters, think that Saddam was a bad man who needed to be taken care of. The argument often comes over whether the war came too soon. Not even including Saddam's actions before sanctions, I feel there is ample evidence supporting a war. This is due to the result it will have for Americans, Iraqis, and the world.

I can bring the entire situation down to a moral issue of "Is it morally right to take lives if it saves many more?"
This is the crux of the argument, despite the many attempts to rationalize peoples' emotions with 'facts' that are innaccurate.

I know that much of the reason for this war was simply a show of force against a state that supported terrorist organizations. However, there are good reasons for this war; ridding that country of a terrible tyrant, ending sanctions against them, dismantling some of the terrorist support networks that existed in Iraq.. Even John Kerry has said he would vote again in favor of the war, he would just go about it differently. Does it outweigh the casualties? Probably not to the families of the dead.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Probably not to the families of the dead.

Which families are you referring? Those that had relatives killed by US troops, or those killed by Saddam or the sanctions?

 

[russ_watters]

Probably not to the families of the dead.

To the families who received, in the mail, a videotape of their loved-one being lowered, slowly, into a plastic shredder, I'd think it would matter quite a lot.

 

[Artman]

To the families who received, in the mail, a videotape of their loved-one being lowered, slowly, into a plastic shredder, I'd think it would matter quite a lot.

Please don't take my comment out of context. My entire statement was:

I know that much of the reason for this war was simply a show of force against a state that supported terrorist organizations. However, there are good reasons for this war; ridding that country of a terrible tyrant, ending sanctions against them, dismantling some of the terrorist support networks that existed in Iraq.. Even John Kerry has said he would vote again in favor of the war, he would just go about it differently. Does it outweigh the casualties? Probably not to the families of the dead.

I personally think that the war was justified. I'm not sure that the families of the casualties of that war would agree. I am fairly certain the victims of Sadaam's sadistic methods would agree that the war is justified.

 

[russ_watters]

Please don't take my comment out of context.

Actually, my point was that your comment lacks context. If we're going to consider those who died during the war, we must also consider those who were killed by Saddam before the war.

 

[Artman]

Actually, my point was that your comment lacks context. If we're going to consider those who died during the war, we must also consider those who were killed by Saddam before the war.

I agree. I thought it was clear from this part of my statement:

...ridding that country of a terrible tyrant,

 

[BobG]

I can bring the entire situation down to a moral issue of "Is it morally right to take lives if it saves many more?"
This is the crux of the argument, despite the many attempts to rationalize peoples' emotions with 'facts' that are innaccurate.

I agree completely. The problem I have is there seems to be an assumption that simply ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein makes things in Iraq better. The truth is that whatever replaces Hussein needs to be better.

It's tempting to say nothing could be worse than Hussein, but that's ignoring the conditions that put someone like Hussein in power in the first place. The end result could be anything ranging from anarchy with no government strong enough to maintain order, to mini-states fighting among each other (remember the breakup of Yugoslavia), to mini-states that manage to peacibly coexist, to a new, more pro-American dictatorship that holds Iraq together by force, to an effective democracy capable of dealing with the concerns of at least the three or four major Iraqi groups. Absolute worst case could be a third world war, depending how things in Iraq affect Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

It's hard to see the US abandoning Iraq to any of the worst case scenarios, considering Iraq's oil is so important, but it is a possibility, especially if this drags out as long as conditions would seem to suggest. But most of the 'desirable' outcomes seem equally unrealistic.

The most likely outcome will be some sort of compromise solution that returns things the way they were before we started, but with a friendlier dictator. Can you say "Shah Reza Pahlavi of Iran"? He bought us time (over a decade, in fact), but the problems didn't go away.

This time, though, the situation is different. Buying time will be more effective because we don't have to buy as much. Wealthy Arab nations and how they use that wealth is what will really resolve problems like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and terrorism, to boot. The smart solution is to prevent the Middle East from blowing up until they change, on their own, to accommodate both the benefits of world trade and their cultural history.

In other words, it really wasn't a question of now or later. They could resolve their own problems if the problems were just pushed far enough into the future. And even if the Iraq-Hussein problem couldn't be pushed far enough into the future to avoid dealing with Hussein, the situation for dealing with him would have only gotten better with time.

 

[Omid]

(Iraqis deaths from 1991-2003)-(Iraqi deaths from 2003-present)=X
END

I think your formula lacks some other figures, like these :
(Afghans + Vietnamese +Japanese) deaths
They are all killed by US army.
And it is highly unlikely all the terrorists in the world have killed as much as Americans did in the last 4 decades.
And consider that after Iraq it's Iran's turn, so you will have to edit your formula again

 

[Artman]

...And even if the Iraq-Hussein problem couldn't be pushed far enough into the future to avoid dealing with Hussein, the situation for dealing with him would have only gotten better with time.

BobG, I agree with most of what you said, except the part above. Iraq was in serious food, water, and other nessecity shortages. These conditions are breeding grounds for dictatorships to rise and gain power. We saw this with Germany following the First World War. Letting this situation fester could only lead to more problems, I don't see how giving it time could make things better.

 

[russ_watters]

I think your formula lacks some other figures, like these :
(Afghans + Vietnamese +Japanese) deaths
They are all killed by US army.
And it is highly unlikely all the terrorists in the world have killed as much as Americans did in the last 4 decades.

Why is that relevant? Those were different wars in different times.

 

[member 5645]

I think your formula lacks some other figures, like these :
(Afghans + Vietnamese +Japanese) deaths
They are all killed by US army.
And it is highly unlikely all the terrorists in the world have killed as much as Americans did in the last 4 decades.
And consider that after Iraq it's Iran's turn, so you will have to edit your formula again

Stay on topic.