• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Clinton adviser: Kerry ran inconsistent campaign


:applaud :rofl

Sadly, people will read your post and take it seriously!
 

Numbers?

As of 2004, Iraq had 26 million, and Afghanistan had 28, not 14. If you want to count Lebanon, that's another 4 million. I should have said close to 60 million. My mistake.

You'd like to discuss numbers? Alright.

First off, the 100,000 civilian number that you spout was pure propaganda released by a later debunked survey right before the election. A more "accurate" number can be gotten from www.iraqbodycount.com , an anti-war source by any mean.

They claim between 17 and 19 thousand civilian deaths. Let's take the average, or 18.

Okay. There have been 18,000 civilian deaths since we invaded in March, 2003. It's been 24 months, so that works out to 750 a month.

During Saddam's rule, he oversaw at a bare MINIMUM civilian executions of 600,000 people, verified by the international Human Rights Watch.

Saddam was in power for 24 years. 600000/24= 25,000 deaths a year.

That's 2083 a month, every single month of Saddam's reign.

So if we've been there 24 months, and we've been "causing" the deaths of 750 civilians a month (which I doubt), then we've actually been saving the lives of (2083-750) 1333 civilians a month, which works out to 31992 civilians so far.

32,000 Iraqi civilians escaped death ALREADY because of our actions in Iraq, and that number will only increase.

So yea, I would count it as us saving the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi's.
 
RightatNYU said:
Numbers?

As of 2004, Iraq had 26 million, and Afghanistan had 28, not 14. If you want to count Lebanon, that's another 4 million. I should have said close to 60 million. My mistake.

You'd like to discuss numbers? Alright.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected re Afghanistan. Lebanon? I missed that we liberated them? I believe in credit where credit is due. However, calling Lebanon liberated is like when Bush said that the war in Iraq was over....it's untrue...
So then this story from Reuters is wrong, but you're unknown website is right?

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1028-08.htm

How many Iraqis died from 1998 until we invaded? I don't know, do you? Why 1998? That's when the inspectors went in and disarmed him. I think you're manipulating the numbers and you're way understating the real numbers that WE'VE KILLED since 2003.

Let me ask you something? You think it's OK that we've killed 100,000+ plus civilians in two years? That's 961 per week since we invaded. IS that acceptable 'collateral' damage?

It's not OK with me. It's a nightmare. Do you think that the families of the 100,000+ Iraqis feel that their loved ones died justifiably? Would you feel good about if it was your family?

Saddam was impotent when we invaded. He wasn't killing the "2083" Iraqis per month, and hadn't for years. BTW - Please show me where you came up with the 600,000 figure? I'm not saying it's wrong, but you didn't provide any source, you just typed it in, like you typed in the 70 million that we've converted to Democracy.
 
Last edited:

1. The "unknown" website is actually the first one that comes up when you search for Iraqi Body Count. It is the longest running, and most comprehensive site on the net.

2. Just because something comes over Reuters doesnt mean it's true. It just means it was reported as news.

3. The study you quote as the "absolute" truth is the highest of the MANY surveys done, and is heavily flawed. From the Washington post:

The analysis, an extrapolation based on a relatively small number of documented deaths, indicated that many of the excess deaths have occurred due to aerial attacks by coalition forces, with women and children being frequent victims, wrote the international team of public health researchers making the calculations.

Previous independent estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq were far lower, never exceeding 16,000. Other experts immediately challenged the new estimate, saying the small number of documented deaths upon which it was based make the conclusions suspect.

"The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting," said Marc E. Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which investigated the number of civilian deaths that occurred during the invasion. "These numbers seem to be inflated."


Based on the number of Iraqi fatalities recorded by the survey teams, the researchers calculated that the death rate since the invasion had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war, the researchers reported in a paper released early by the Lancet, a British medical journal.

When the researchers examined the causes of the 73 violent deaths collected in the study, 84 percent were due to the actions of coalition forces, although the researchers stressed that none was the result of what would have been considered misconduct. Ninety-five percent were due to airstrikes by helicopter gunships, rockets or other types of aerial weaponry.


Basically, these researchers went out and asked people about people who had died. They found SEVENTY THREE DEATHS, and then extrapolated that to mean that 100,000 people have been killed by the US. Sound like good research to you?

Now, regarding Saddam's body count. You're right, I don't think its right that we've killed 100,000 civilians, but that's mostly because we didn't.

As to the 600,000 number? It's the most well documented and accepted number available. Here's a few places that cite it, just that I've found quickly:

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242
http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

Even anti-war sites are condceding that Saddam killed between 500,000 and 1 million Iraqis.

http://www.stinkzone.com/cgi-bin/archives/000184.html

Another group started by Iraqis who are trying to find what happened to their families during saddam's reign estimates 1.6 million deaths.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/2004news/07062004/world/25234.htm

You say that in 1998, the inspectors went in and disarmed Saddam, so somehow that means that he wasn't killing his own people? None but 5000 of Saddam's murders were done with weapons that would have been limited by the inspectors, even if the inspectors were effective. He was shooting people, starving them, and beheading them.

You can obscure the facts all you want, but the truth is, less people are dying now than were before the war.
 
RightatNYU said:
1. The "unknown" website is actually the first one that comes up when you search for Iraqi Body Count. It is the longest running, and most comprehensive site on the net.
Click to expand...

That simply means more hits, not more accurate. Please keep the facts straight?

RightatNYU said:
2. Just because something comes over Reuters doesnt mean it's true. It just means it was reported as news.
Click to expand...

The study was done by Johns Hopkins University, a schoold that I consider a far more reliable source than a website!


Did you read what that site said? It says:

Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran.
Click to expand...

Needless war? Yes! But you're post makes it sound like he lined them up and used Iraqis to kill other Iraqis, which is simply not the case. Therefore the number that you cite as accurate reduces to 100,000 (still way too many) over 24 years, or 4166 per year or 80 per week. That's way different than the numbers you keep using. We've killed 100,000 in TWO years! Even if that number is 50,000 that's a lot of people! We lost 50,000 men in Vietnam over 15 years or so...


Please tell me how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam after 1998? I do not know the answer?

RightatNYU said:
You can obscure the facts all you want, but the truth is, less people are dying now than were before the war.
Click to expand...

Collateral damage, right? How many people would have been saved from death if Bush actually had a plan for Iraq after the initial attacks were made? How many would be alive if we had tried even a little bit to keep their infrastructure in place? Is that collateral damage too?
 
1. I didn't say that iraqibodycount.com was more accurate because its at the top, I just said that you were wrong when you claimed it was "unknown." It's accurate because of its precise methodology and meticulous calculations.

2. You're right, that first study was done by Johns Hopkins. Know what? The other study was done by Stanford, while the second source I quoted was someone with his doctorate in Iraqi studies from Oxford. Are those sources unreliable too? Just because a study is done by a prestigious university, it doesn't automatically supercede the other studies done by other prestigious universities. Did you even read about the methodology of that survey? Do you honestly think that by asking about the circumstances surrounding the deaths of SEVENTY THREE people, that you can reasonably extrapolate that to the 6 figures? Look beyond the conclusions of the surveys you read, and look at how they were done.

The "unknown" iraqbodycount website documents each and every single death that they can find, and uses THAT to arrive at their total. Slightly better methodology than JH.

3. Did YOU read what that site said? An ADDITIONAL 500,000, in ADDITION to the 600,000. This is ther third or fourth time that you haven't even read what I've offered you, and made fallacious claims about their veracity.

While many people count those 500,000 in Saddam's body pile, I chose to leave them out for the same reason that you did: You can argue over their applicability.

4. Why does it matter how many Iraqis Saddam killed after 1998, and what evidence do you have that it would be any different? He didn't suddenly stop oppressing the Kurds or ordering beheadings as soon as the UN weapon inspectors came in. You're just asking for a statistic that is inavailable and very unlikely to be consequential to divert attention from the fact that you're wrong about everything else.

5. You can complain all you want about "Bush's failures to plan the war." The best laid plans of war rarely survive the first battle. We can all wish that different things would have happened, but armchair quarterbacks always have that luxury.

The bottom line is that less Iraqis are dead now than would be if we had not invaded. Period. And there's not a single statistic that is reliable that you can offer to counter that.
 
It matters because in the last 5 years the murders that were so plentiful before 1998 became a LOT smaller. He wasn't killing at the pace he used to kill. Plus, not to be cold, but that is not the reason we attacked Iraq. You're using it as a cover-up. We went in for WMDs, Nukes & OBL, remember?

RightatNYU said:
5. You can complain all you want about "Bush's failures to plan the war." The best laid plans of war rarely survive the first battle. We can all wish that different things would have happened, but armchair quarterbacks always have that luxury.
Click to expand...
That's really unfair. Imagine what you would be writing if Clinton bungled it like Bush? Please, be fair? The lack of planning, the lack of adequate troop strength, has directly resulted in thousands and thousands of Iraqis and Americans being killed. To shrug it off as 'best laid plans' is weak, really. People's lives are at stake here, its not a video game.

RightatNYU said:
The bottom line is that less Iraqis are dead now than would be if we had not invaded. Period. And there's not a single statistic that is reliable that you can offer to counter that.
Click to expand...
I do not accept that as fact based on the receding amounts of Iraqi civilian casualties since 1998.

BTW - If I made a mistake with the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam, I humbly apologize.
 
There is no evidence (That I have seen, anyways) whatsoever that the killings by Saddam slowed down after 1998.

Even, hypothetically, if there were, you are arguing "Yea, well, he killed 600,000 people, but he was cutting back, so what's the problem?"

If you're going to tell me that the numbers were receding, then you need to back that up.

You're right in that ending civilian deaths wasn't the reason we invaded Iraq. But if we had invaded and found a cure for cancer hidden in a lab, I wouldn't be unhappy about that either. The point is that lives are being saved.

Put aside what's happening now. Do you honestly think, that in 10 years, Iraq will not be an infinitely better place to live than it was 10 years ago?

Regarding the way the war has been carried out: Do you really think that Bush sat down and decided what would happen? Or that anyone who was a partisan politician laid out battle plans? No.

What happened was, the JCOS and the generals sat down and decided what they, to the best of their knowledge, would do to carry out the war. I don't believe the war would have happened differently no matter who was President. If they had insisted on bringing more people, then there would have been a larger anti-war sentiment, which is the most effective weapon against the US military. All things have to be considered.

And no, if Clinton had "bungled" it like Bush, I wouldn't be all over him. If he had done what Bush did, I'd have voted for him.
 
RightatNYU said:
Put aside what's happening now. Do you honestly think, that in 10 years, Iraq will not be an infinitely better place to live than it was 10 years ago?
Click to expand...
It damn well better be! But who knows? Why? Religion can interfere in Iraq as it has in many other countries, and if it does all bets are off! Think about Afghanistan? When the Russians left don't you think people said what you said about 10 years hence? What happened there? You never know? Maybe the super pro-religious right in this country should look at the religion in government thing a little closer too?


Uhmm..not true. PBS' Frontline had a great expose re this very subject last Fall, it was called "Rumsfeld's War." It detailed how Rummy's concept of smaller force + greater techno would make it a breeze. The most fundemental error Bush made was believing Rummy and allowing him to do his thing because the lack of manpower is the single biggest reason for the Insurgency's success, and for the needless deaths of countless Iraqis and Americans. That really, really sucks, and they should be held accountable.

Look here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/

You don't really believe that? C'mon! That had zero to do with the decision making, it never came into play, sorry.

The reality is that the Neocon's War Plan was executed exactly to their specs by Rummy & Bush. Surely you know about this? Note the signees?



Now, you want to really get scared? Read their complete manifesto, especially page 63:


http://www.newmericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

So please don't tell me about the 'best laid plans' when the entire Iraq war was planned in 1997 & then these guys exploited 9-11 to start the war rather than going after OBL. My deep, deep hatred for the NEOCONS is based on this manifesto, and the audacity to purposely risk American lives to further their personal cause/vendetta. Saddam was evil, and so are the NEOCONS. :twisted:
 
Last edited:
When the Russians left Afghanistan, it was a devastated ****hole with no real form of government. We're helping to build an infrastructure that was destroyed (not by us, but by other wars), and have helped a democratic government rise up. The two situations are not analogous.

From the same report that you cited: "He is willing to start military operations in Afghanistan before most of the military thinks that we're ready to do so. And [a] small number of special forces soldiers combined with CIA support for indigenous Afghan resistance forces brings about spectacular results," Krepinevich says.

I have to agree with Rumsfeld on this one. A smaller, more technologically advanced Army IS better than a larger, more ill equipped one. That's always been the way of the US Army. In World War II, while Russia was fighting Germany with a massive but ill equipped army, we were fighting with a smaller but more advanced army. Our losses were millions less than Russia.

The war could only have been done two other ways:

1. More troops, same level of technological advancement. This would have added hundreds of billions to the cost of the war and people such as yourself would have protested even harder, making the war effectively untenable.

2. More troops, less technological advancement. The cost would have remained relatively stable, but the army would have been less advanced. Many more people would have been killed.

In the decision of how to go forward with the war, choices had to be made, and I feel like the best possible ones were made. I'd rather have a unmanned drone blown up than a plane flown by 4 soldiers, wouldn't you?

And you don't think that when the war was being planned, a HUGE part of the preparation was calculating how the American public would see it and what the reaction would be? It was definately a concern.

Regarding that open letter:

I've never seen it before, but I wish I had. It would have made me happier to know that even before 9/11, there were some people in our government who recognized the danger we were in.

The excerpt you presented? What's wrong with it. It looks to me like these people recognized that America had fallen into such a state of lethargy that it would be almost impossible to alert the people to the trauma we face.

They "exploited" 9/11 in the same way that global warming advocates "exploit" pollution, or anti-war advocates "exploit" incidents of individual abuse.

You can claim that the entire Iraq war was planned out in 1997, or that the "NEOCONS" are out to destroy us all, but the fact is that those horrible, awful, TERRIBLE neocons are the reason our country hasn't been attacked again, and the reason why 60 million more people are living in freedom today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…