So much for 100,000 deaths in Iraq, try 12,000

Applying your “logic” to the Twin Towers…

Initial estimates were over 6000 dead but later revised to the current figure of 2823.
Based on the US population figures that’s 0.0009545 %.

Of course calculations of Iraqi dead are more difficlult as the US army doesn’t bother to count them.

The Iraqi authorities keep track of how many are killed in these kinds of operations. You make it sound as if the US does not care and that is why it does not count any of these deaths but given the numbers who go to hospitals then die or the number of bodies carried off by comrades etc. just how would you suggest that these bodies are counted?

Anyway, the key point is that the figure of dead in Iraq is probably 25,000 or less. Of these, 7,000 (high mark) were killed during the invasion. This includes many Iraqi soldiers killed during the fighting as well as innocent victims of bombings. Meanwhile 12,000 were killed by the insurgents, 1,650 US troops have died, perhaps a few hundred other allied troops have died and so the vast bulk of these deaths are still caused by Saddam, the insurgents and then the US. So who do we hear the most protests about? Naturally, the US. AND given that the US troops have tried their utmost to minimize casualties while the insurgents have done their utmost to maximize civilian casualties that would make sense right? And that is why the peace protesters meet and march to protest the US and not Saddam, not the UN, not France, Germany, Russia or China who sold Saddam all his weapons, but the US. Makes sense to me. Pass the reefer dude. Harsh!

Drifting a little here Fred, probably best to give up on this thread and just put it down to experience :wink:

[quote=“spook”]

False choice. Like saying twenty years ago the only choice was between accepting the inevitable expansion of Soviet communism or global thermonuclear war.

How about no Saddam, no Darfur, no Kim Jong Il, no Guantanamo, no religious wars masquerading as wars of liberation, no 3,000,000 stateless Palestinians penned up in a U.S. taxpayer financed ghetto – and no ‘current situation.’

Just liberty and justice for all without taking ends-justify-the-means shortcuts to nowhere.[/quote]

False analogy. The situation in Iraq is clearcut. You may agree or disagree with Bush’s decisions, but if he hadn’t done what he had, the odds are great that Saddam or a similar regime would still be in power.

So I assume you would prefer to live under that regime than the current one? Don’t digress.

The 25,000 figure is probably an accurate one for Iraqi deaths based upon direct reports by the media or official bodies (hospitals, morgues and, some NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. However, this includes only these verifiable deaths and is not an estimate of possible or probable deaths.
The 100,000 figure based on the Lancet’s study of excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population. This is their total count which includes those who could have been conbatants.
You seem to think this is acceptable. Would you think so if this were American deaths?
As for who is responsible, you seem to have a rosy view of the American military, which I’d think you might question after Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Let’s face it the US record in its previous conflicts hardly inspires any faith.
And you’re absolutely right to mention arms sales by France, Germany, Russia and China. Strange that you forgot to mention the US and Britain - two of the biggest supporters of Saddam during the 80’s when he was using all those WMD we sold him.
Get real and stop believing all that ideology about the US bringing freedom and democracy. When was that ever true!

[quote=“yesterday”]
You seem to think this is acceptable. Would you think so if this were American deaths?[/quote]

If it were a choice between that or a Saddam, you’d better believe it.

[quote]
Get real and stop believing all that ideology about the US bringing freedom and democracy. When was that ever true![/quote]

how about today in Iraq.

[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“yesterday”]
You seem to think this is acceptable. Would you think so if this were American deaths?[/quote]

If it were a choice between that or a Saddam, you’d better believe it.

[quote]
Get real and stop believing all that ideology about the US bringing freedom and democracy. When was that ever true![/quote]

how about today in Iraq.[/quote]

The only opinion that really matters is that of the Iraqi people. If the majority of them believe that being invaded and occupied by the U.S. is the price they have to pay in order to rid themselves of Saddam and if they believe it was all done in order to bestow freedom and democracy on them then that’s the only opinion that counts.

On the other hand, if they don’t believe the above is the real truth then it really doesn’t matter what the rest of us think.

You really think so, spook? Do you reckon the majority of Japanese people wanted to lose the war and become occupied by the US? Do you think the majority of Germans did?

Who knows, maybe they did.

I guess it’s also possible that you aren’t even making this claim. Perhaps you are saying that, yes, the majority of Germans probably didn’t want to be occupied by the US, and that you are also claiming that they were right – that continued Nazi dictatorship would have been preferable to the US occupation and “puppet government” that followed.

Does seem like a rather tough position to take seriously in either case though… :idunno:

Finally they are going to give Saddam his day in court. However, though there are over 500 potential charges, the prosecutors have about 12 charges that they will press.

Saddam Hussein Faces a Range of Charges, AP

[quote=“Hobbes”]
Does seem like a rather tough position to take seriously in either case though… :idunno:[/quote]

Hobbes 1, Straw Man 0

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:

  1. Person A has position X.
  2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
  3. Person B attacks position Y.
  4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. "

Here’s a clue to the fallacious reasoning. World War II wasn’t called “Operation Japanese (or German) Freedom.”

[quote=“spook”]

The only opinion that really matters is that of the Iraqi people. If the majority of them believe that being invaded and occupied by the U.S. is the price they have to pay in order to rid themselves of Saddam and if they believe it was all done in order to bestow freedom and democracy on them then that’s the only opinion that counts.

On the other hand, if they don’t believe the above is the real truth then it really doesn’t matter what the rest of us think.[/quote]

I agree completely with you here. Hobbes’ point is good however, the true pre-invasion opinion would have been unknowable. I think it was safe to assume that the majority of people would have liked to see him removed.

Of course our interest was paramount in our decision, as you alluded to earlier there are and have been many other dictators that we ignored or even supported in the past. But Saddam was rather a bad one even among the worst. He had proved himself to be dangerous on an international level in the past. I firmly disagree that there was any profit motive or nefarious design on our part, only the belief that he was a threat to international safety.

If it became obvious that our presence in Iraq was truly unwelcome than I think we would have to bite the bullet and depart. But so far I believe that that is not the case–so far.

Well, there’s always another enthusiastic newbie to take to task and it seems as if that task will be endless so here goes…

Yesterday wrote:

That is not my understanding. Given that it includes those Iraqi deaths from the invasion (7,000 or fewer) most of which could not be verified since most of the bodies were buried immediately during the invasion rather than being left to rot in the open for three weeks, I think that the claim is incorrect. Most reputable agencies have put their best estimates at the 25,000 range. This has been verified by numerous sources.

Actually, it was a mean of a projection. Anyone who has worked with statistics knows how "mean"ingless a mean is. It merely represents the median point between two projections from most likely to probable. It is probable that some day I will take a shit on the moon, but the reality is that I will probably be using the toilet down the hall for the far foreseeable future. Ergo, the median of my toilet experience would thus be half way to the moon according to this probability.

Did I say acceptable? No. I said I find it ironic that those who “claim” to care about Iraqi deaths have nothing to say about Saddam’s murder of what 3 million? in his wars and all his efforts? The 1 million who may have died under UN sanctions with corruption at the highest levels between France, Russia and the UN on one hand and Saddam on the other.

Despite the media frenzy, the incidents were isolated, they were investigated, they are being prosecuted. There are 550 detainees left in Guantanamo. They were fighting out of uniform when they were captured. Even under the Geneva Conventions (whose protection they are not entitled to claim), we can hold them until the end of the conflict. That conflict has not ended, therefore, they can be held. Sorry.

More ignorance that can be corrected with a quick visit to any of these past threads, or check out www.sipri.org. These detail that the US and UK sold Saddam less than 1 percent of his conventional weapons and less than 3.5 percent each of his wmds. What counted as “wmds” in most of the US sales in this report? Supercomputers that “could” have dual-use purposes. Contrast that with the 50 percent of Saddam’s nuclear, chemical and missile arsenal which was sold to him by German firms. That is why Iran is suing only one nation for the chemical gas deaths during the Iran-Iraq war and that nation is Germany. Sorry, but like a great many people, your knowledge of the facts is limited and skewed.

Hmmm. Let me see. Germany, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Eastern Europe, much of Latin America. Ask the Eastern Europeans who they credit with their freedom. It ain’t the Russians and it ain’t the Europeans. Listen to what their leaders have said, including Havel, among others. Listen to the Baltics. Listen to Ukraine. Listen to the dissidents in Belarus. Listen to Georgia. So um, gosh, I would have to say the US has brought democracy, respect for human rights and rule of law to more nations than any other perhaps barring the UK.

Want to try again?

[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“spook”]

The only opinion that really matters is that of the Iraqi people. If the majority of them believe that being invaded and occupied by the U.S. is the price they have to pay in order to rid themselves of Saddam and if they believe it was all done in order to bestow freedom and democracy on them then that’s the only opinion that counts.

On the other hand, if they don’t believe the above is the real truth then it really doesn’t matter what the rest of us think.[/quote]

I agree completely with you here. Hobbes’ point is good however, the true pre-invasion opinion would have been unknowable. I think it was safe to assume that the majority of people would have liked to see him removed.

Of course our interest was paramount in our decision, as you alluded to earlier there are and have been many other dictators that we ignored or even supported in the past. But Saddam was rather a bad one even among the worst. He had proved himself to be dangerous on an international level in the past. I firmly disagree that there was any profit motive or nefarious design on our part, only the belief that he was a threat to international safety.

If it became obvious that our presence in Iraq was truly unwelcome than I think we would have to bite the bullet and depart. But so far I believe that that is not the case–so far.[/quote]

It just struck me as odd to the point of being absurd that we were debating whether or not it was worth it to sacrifice the lives of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and have foreign troops overrun and occupy their country in order to free them from a dictator.

Who are we to decide whether or not it was worth it to sacrifice the lives of their neighbors and family members and lose their sovereignty for some years to come in order to achieve their present circumstances?

That sort of mindless arrogance is at the heart of all of our policies in the Middle East and among the true root causes of Arab and Muslim hatred towards us – not the simplistic “they hate freedom” propaganda that passes for insight in America these days.

It may have been unknowable before the invasion of Iraq whether or not the majority of Iraqis wanted us to invade their country and save them but it’s certainly knowable now. We don’t really know even now though and I think it’s because – as Hobbes pointed out – we don’t really care to know.

Spook:

Actually, we do know. We have conducted polls. Most of the Iraqis do not want the US in their country but recognize it is needed until stability is restored. The biggest desire of most is to see stability and security return. Who do they blame? The insurgents. Do they like seeing US soldiers? No. Do they want them to leave? No. That is the dilemma we are in right now. Is it worth fighting? I believe so. I also believe that we are winning. I believe that we would be even farther along the road to winning if we would remove the support bases which like Fallujah serve as safe camps for insurgents. The worst ones are located in Syria. Let’s remove those. When Syria is out of the picture, then we have a lot more time and attention for Iran. Either we contain it or we move to actively encourage a revolt but let’s not pretend that this is not a regional war. This cannot be limited to this one nation or that one nation anymore than World War II or the Cold War could. This is not about Afghanistan or Iraq but reshaping the entire Middle East. I know you don’t like that part but that is what is needed if we are going to defeat this terrorist threat once and for all. There can be no safe zones for them, no regrouping or training points.

Fred,

Maybe you could share your poll data with us concerning Iraqi public attitudes about whether the invasion and its aftermath were worth it to them or not and whether or not they see the U.S. as liberators – or occupiers with another agenda besides its official, stated one.

I do know that according to Gallup-CNN-USA Today polling of the American public conducted in May that 57% of the American public doesn’t think the war was worth it and as of April 50% of the American public believed the Bush Administration deliberately misled them as to what its motives were for invading and occupying Iraq.

If you can find a current poll of Iraqi public opinion with more positive numbers than that I’ll be – well – enlightened.

[quote]
Late last year, I was an organizer of a major national survey of Iraqi public opinion that demonstrated the complexity of the country’s communal relations. To be sure, Iraqis of different ethnic or religious backgrounds are divided over many issues, but they also embrace a common national identity, as well as a desire for democracy.

To begin, we asked Iraqis to reflect on the fall of Saddam Hussein: Was Iraq better off without him? Among Sunnis, only 23 percent thought so. Among Shiites, however, 87 percent saw a better Iraq without Saddam. Kurds exceeded this number, with 95 percent claiming an improvement.

We asked respondents to rate how much control they had over their lives and how optimistic they were about the future, using a scale where 10 was a highly optimistic sense of control and one a deep level of powerlessness and pessimism.

Kurds had the highest perception of control and optimism, with 19 percent indicating the highest level of control over their lives and 17 percent the greatest degree of hope in the future. The comparable figures for Shiites were 10 and 14 percent, respectively, but were just 4 percent and 5 percent, respectively, for Sunnis. The results for extreme pessimism were skewed in the opposite direction: 14 percent of Sunnis thought things were as bad as could be, while only 2 percent of Kurds and 3 percent of Shiites shared this opinion.[/quote]

dailystar.com.lb/article.asp … e_id=15179

or continue at this very extensive survey with very interesting results. Unemployment and other factors are far higher in terms of concern among Iraqis than the insurgents. It also points out that the South, Mid Euphrates and Kurdish areas are relatively safe and satisfied. Baghdad and the Sunni areas along with Mosul and Kirkuk are most worried.

iri.org/pdfs/NovemberSurveyP … 6,1,Survey of Iraqi Public Opinion

Could I be so impertinent as to ask you to check the following in the dictionary: average, mean, median, mode, probable, possible. You seem to be in some confusion in the above post (8:02 am may be a bit early :wink: ).

One more charge they are seriously contemplating charging Saddam with:

That would bring the score to approximately:
2003 - present: Iraq Invasion and After -> 100,000 deaths
1979 - 2003: Saddam’s Dictatorship -> 200,000 deaths

[quote=“twocs”]That would bring the score to approximately:
2003 - present: Iraq Invasion and After -> 100,000 deaths
1979 - 2003: Saddam’s Dictatorship -> 200,000 deaths[/quote]

Or, using more accurate figures:

2003 - present: Iraq Invasion and After -> 25,000 deaths
1979 - 2003: Saddam’s Dictatorship -> 800,000 deaths

SOURCES:

*Note: These figures are being as favourable as possible to the Baathist regime, and as negative as possible regarding the results of the liberation (without, that is, abandoning the actual numbers and resorting to fictional nonsense ala the “Lancet Study”).

[color=blue]For the 1979-2003 numbers I used:[/color]

  • 300,000, the low estimate of those killed by gas attacks, bullets etc. (from Human Rights Watch, quoted here)

plus

  • 500,000 the low estimate of children starved to death by Saddam, who chose to spend oil-for-food money on 17 gold-plated palaces, Swiss bank accounts, etc. rather than on food for his people (from UNICEF, quoted here)

[color=blue]For the 2003-Present number, I used:[/color]

As mentioned, even a cursory look will reveal that these numbers are very generous to Hussein. He starved 500,000 children to death — anyone think maybe a few adults starved to death at that time as well? Probably at least another couple hundred thousand on his “scorecard”. Note that the 500,000 itself is a low estimate, as is the 300,000 for those he had killed for political reasons.

Also notice that the iraqbodycount number includes deaths from factors such as “poor sanitation”, which were obviously present under Saddam as well.

Conclusion:

From what I’ve read, it seems to me that the more realistic number for Saddam’s kills is well over 1,000,000. It also seems to me that the iraqibodycount number is clearly stretching its definitions to get as a high a number as they can.

However, unless I want to follow twocs’s approach and just make up whatever numbers I feel like, I suppose I’d best:

  • stick with actual numbers from quoted sources,
  • use sources that disagree with my own political views, and
  • use the most unfavourable estimates possible from each of those sources.

[color=black]If such a conservative approach to the data leaves us with a net positive number of “only” 22,000 lives saved every year as a result of removing Hussein from power, so be it. I can live with that.[/color] :idunno:

[quote=“Hobbes”][quote=“twocs”]That would bring the score to approximately:
2003 - present: Iraq Invasion and After -> 100,000 deaths
1979 - 2003: Saddam’s Dictatorship -> 200,000 deaths[/quote]
Or, using more accurate figures:

2003 - present: Iraq Invasion and After -> 25,000 deaths
1979 - 2003: Saddam’s Dictatorship -> 800,000 deaths[/quote]
Thanks for the perspective, Hobbes. At least you’ve cited some sources. Twocs, why bother if you’re simply talking out of your arse?