100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Porfiry, Oct 29, 2004.

  1. towards Relax...head towards the light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    "What street did you live on?
    You have an apartment or was it a house you lived in?
    Which of the local stores did you shop at?
    Spend much time relaxing in the coffee shops with the locals after work?", Dee Cee


    Ask yourself why you are so quick to take one side of the war, such as this study without question, and are so quick to trash to firsthand experience of one who may have actually been there?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DeeCee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,793
    Ask yourself why you are so quick to take one side of the war, such as this study without question, and are so quick to trash to firsthand experience of one who may have actually been there?

    1. The study in question probably has quite a large margin of error but it's still the most rigorous so far attempted. If you locate a better one let me know.

    2. Living on a US military base with all of it's western trappings and only ever venturing out in an armed convoy is no way to get an objective view of the Iraq situation. I don't suppose getting shot at helps either.

    I went on holiday to Florida once, Stayed for three weeks.
    Guess that makes me an expert on America.
    Dee Cee
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DeeCee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,793
    Every other survey I have seen, has put the number around 15-20K, a more realistic number considering the tactics the U.S. forces are using.

    Hooray I'll break out the champagne!
    Only 15-20,000. Freedom truly is on the march.
    Dee Cee
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Ask yourself why you are so quick to take one side of the war, such as this study without question, and are so quick to trash to firsthand experience of one who may have actually been there?

    Its enpar with asking the soldier is the street you are patrolling peaceful, you’re not asking if Iraq is because they don't have the perspective or wherewithal to tell you. Ask a US reservist how Fallujah is...oh yah he can't. So alas we come to the conclusion American soldiers know as much as their eyes can carry them. So no towards I don’t trust the conclusions drawn by US soldiers, they care about living another day not the complex problems of Sunni, Shi’a, Kurd in Iraq. That’s why you are supposed to have a educated political bureaucracy at home…but that has also obviously failed the US as well.
     
  8. towards Relax...head towards the light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    "Hooray I'll break out the champagne!
    Only 15-20,000.", DeeCee

    Historically unprecedented for an invasion of a country. If they were to get a better government (not saying that will happen), then that is a small price to pay, yes. Ask the South Koreans
     
  9. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    If I were to ask South Koreans about a "better" government, their tyrannical dictatorship which the US supported until 1988 they would laugh.
     
  10. towards Relax...head towards the light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    "That’s why you are supposed to have a educated political bureaucracy at home…but that has also obviously failed the US as well. ", Undecided

    No, actually many warned Bush to the realities of owning Iraq, he just choose to ignore.

    "So alas we come to the conclusion American soldiers know as much as their eyes can carry them", Undecided

    Which is a hell of alot more than you or I know sitting on our computers
     
  11. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    No, actually many warned Bush to the realities of owning Iraq, he just choose to ignore.

    The point is that I was talking about a educated executive. Alas they failed them.

    Which is a hell of alot more than you or I know sitting on our computers

    Not necessarily...if I were a US soldier in Iraq of course I would feel x about the war from what I see. But that’s the point, from what I can perceive is the point. The American soldier imo is not a authority figure when it comes to the situation in Iraq, what he can tell me is the level of violence he encountered on his patrols, but not Iraq, and not within scope. So I really don’t consider his experience all that different from yours. If I asked him… “how was Sadr City” then I could get a much more objective answer then, “how was Iraq?”
     
  12. towards Relax...head towards the light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    "If I were to ask South Koreans about a "better" government, their tyrannical dictatorship which the US supported until 1988 they would laugh.", Undecided

    The American pressure is what finally helped break that government up, which was necessary for the development of the nations economy. A country like Iraq could use that sort of government until security develops, until a switch is made to democracy.

    The people were able to make the switch because the government was not as tyrannical as you would like to convince yourself. The lifestyles of the South Koreans began to improve under that government, not unlike that of China now.
     
  13. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    The American pressure is what finally helped break that government up, which was necessary for the development of the nations economy. A country like Iraq could use that sort of government until security develops, until a switch is made to democracy.

    Note that the US did not have to invade SK to get that to happen. See the difference? The US could have opted to get the Iraqi people to revolt against Saddam (which they did do in 1991 with US assurances) and Saddam would have been gone and the Iraqi people themselves would deal with their own issues like the SK’s did. You assertion that the government in SK was somehow better then NK is wrong, now yes.

    The people were able to make the switch because the government was not as tyrannical as you would like to convince yourself. The lifestyles of the South Koreans began to improve under that government, not unlike that of China now.

    The same argument could be said for Kim as well, well into the 80’s NK and SK had equal standards of living, NK’s even ate more then SK’s through the 80’s.
     
  14. towards Relax...head towards the light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    "You assertion that the government in SK was somehow better then NK is wrong", Undecided

    Yes, completely different levels of freedom. The differences were immense, which is why SK was able to create a democracy.


    "The same argument could be said for Kim as well, well into the 80’s NK and SK had equal standards of living, NK’s even ate more then SK’s through the 80’s. ", Undecided

    NK had an artificial government of the Soviet Union propping them up. I think the end result is the answer to any argument. SK is way ahead of NK now, so the argument is irrelevent.
     
  15. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Yes, completely different levels of freedom. The differences were immense, which is why SK was able to create a democracy.

    SK was able to create a democracy because of generous US aid, generous terms of trade, and general better economic growth. The dictatorship of SK was just as bad as the NK regime for a extended period of time, so I am not buying it.

    NK had an artificial government of the Soviet Union propping them up. I think the end result is the answer to any argument. SK is way ahead of NK now, so the argument is irrelevent

    What do you think the US was to SK for most of her history? Please...let's get into the point of ridiculousness here. Both states were sad until the late 80’s when SK made her huge jump in economics through capitalism insertion. NK relative to SK was for most of their history more industrial, and generally better off then SK. So it’s not so irrelevant when you put into a historical context. We aren’t talking about the “modern” SK, because we are talking about the dictatorial SK.
     
  16. towards Relax...head towards the light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    "We aren’t talking about the “modern” SK, because we are talking about the dictatorial SK.", Undecided

    Yah , I was. I am talking about the end result, the fact that the people who died in that war was justified for the end result of a successful SK.

    "SK was able to create a democracy because of generous US aid, generous terms of trade, and general better economic growth.", Undecided

    Which confirms my initial point. The civilian deaths were worth the cause, and the U.S. helped out. My entire point is that the casualties of that war were much higher, and the end result was good.
     
  17. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Yah , I was. I am talking about the end result, the fact that the people who died in that war was justified for the end result of a successful SK.

    The US did not create the modern democratic SK, what created the modern democratic SK was the 1981 massacre by the SK regime that began to change hearts and minds not only against the central gov’t but alos against the US, and anti-US sentiment in SK has risen precipitously ever since. I am not saying that the repulsion of NK from SK was bad, but the assertion made by you that US military intervention directly created a better gov’t is bull.

    Which confirms my initial point. The civilian deaths were worth the cause, and the U.S. helped out. My entire point is that the casualties of that war were much higher, and the end result was good.

    That conclusion is from mars, because it has NOTHING to do with what I said…try again.
     
  18. towards Relax...head towards the light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    "but the assertion made by you that US military intervention directly created a better gov’t is bull. ", Undecided

    If there was no military intervention, then there would be a communist Korea. This is just fact. No modern day SK without what the U.S. did to prevent the northern invasion. Impossible to argue with.
    "
    That conclusion is from mars, because it has NOTHING to do with what I said…try again. ", Undecided

    That is the whole point of the thread, civilian casualties, so I do not see were my conclusion does not fit in here. Why argue about SK at all if you can't see the connection?
     
  19. Kunax Sciforums:Reality not required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,385
    allong the same line of thinking, you could also say there would have been no democratic SK, but a democratic and united Korea.
     
  20. towards Relax...head towards the light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    640
    "allong the same line of thinking, you could also say there would have been no democratic SK, but a democratic and united Korea", Kunax

    Considering that the North was invading the South, and attempting to convert them to communism, I somehow doubt that would have led to a democracy
     
  21. Hastein Welcome To Kampuchea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    379
    Your conclusion is partially correct by the natural limitations of personal experience, but I think you fail to take into account the other roles that the military plays. Intelligence gathering, humanitarian aid, and a security network are all run by the military forces, not the news media here at home.

    As for the comment about 'liberating' Iraqis, that was surely an arbitrary goal invented after the invasion. Our goal was to destroy the political system, capture its elements, and disarm the WMDs. For the record, WMDs were being manufactured by Iraq in Syria, but not on actual Iraqi soil. They were perhaps part of a broader plan to attack Israel with help from Iran (of all allies). The Ba'ath party did have direct contact with Al-Quida operatives after the invasion, but it is yet unknown whether Al-Zarqawi was affiliated with the regime, considering his opposition to Saddam.
     
  22. DeeCee Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,793
    In your opinion Hastein how long do you think the US will need to stay in country?

    Dee Cee
     
  23. Kunax Sciforums:Reality not required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,385
    towards: the problem here is none know what would have happend if north Korea had won, it is all down to spekulation and ideas based on what we think we know today. Predicting the future is just as hard as predicting "what if's" in the past.
     

Share This Page