the sad thing is that there may be one person who reads that and doesn't realize you don't think a single word of that is true (other than the numbers of the Jewish people and Armenians killed). But for some reason you enjoy posting it.
Do I have to drag out the Wikipedia articles again? One estimate says 1.4 million, and the the other says only 600,000...something like those numbers. And they're a couple of years old, so it's higher now. The half-million from sanctions number has been around for a decade, and even the UN uses it. I'll make you a deal. I'll compromise. Divide those numbers in half, then we'll argue. Okay, I'll let you divide them by 3. Okay, 4. You still lose. They knocked Sadaam out of power after a week. Why keep killing? They captured him after a few months. Why do nation-building? Just abandon the place, let them fight, an anti-American government appears, and warn them that if they make trouble for the US, the same thing will happen to them. So they just give lip service against Israel and the US for backing Israel, like the other Middle East governments do. That would have saved a trillion dollars and a lot of lives.
654K in 2006...The Lancet is the leading medical journal in the world, and is in Britain, which fought the war with the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties 1.033M in Jan. 2008...one of the leading British polling companies (similar to Gallup here) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties Lesser estimates come from more stringent requirements, usually that the death must have been reported in a newspaper. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War This is the first war in which the US has hidden the body count...the behavior of someone who knows what he's doing is wrong...in previous wars, the body count was a bragging point to prove that we were winning...Reading this thread, you'd think the majority of Americans are in favor of this war. Not according to all polls, for many years now.
IraqBodyCount.org Documented civilian deaths from violence 99,901 – 109,143 Latest incidents Latest identified Feb 16: Female Property Registration Office director shot dead in Wahda, east Mosul Details Khawla al-Sabawi / Khawla Muhammad Salih Adult; Female; Government official Details Recent events Sunday 27 February: 1 killed Baquba: 1 Sahwa by gunfire. More
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/03/fox-news-poll-americans-value-iraq-involvement/ Despite its contentious history, most American voters appear to have made a positive judgment about the country's efforts in Iraq. Almost six in 10 (58 percent) voters think, overall, the United States "did the right thing" by going to war, according to the latest Fox News poll. A little over one-third of voters (35 percent) take the opposite view -- that the U.S. "did the wrong thing" by becoming involved militarily in Iraq. From a partisan perspective, there is still division -- as 54 percent of Democrats think the U.S. did the wrong thing in Iraq, while only 14 percent of Republicans feel the same way. A slim majority of independents (52 percent) think the U.S. did the right thing in Iraq.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq May 2003 A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.[9]
The relevant question would be, "Regardless of whether you think we did the right thing many years ago, are you for or against continuing the war now?"
Post #46. Realize that of all those ~100K Iraqi deaths, about 90K were Muslims killing Muslims. Remember the Mosque bombings, the drive by shootings of Iraqis standing in line to join the army or police, etc.?
I missed where we unilaterally imposed sanctions on Iraq and killed millions (I'll let YOU double it!). Wait, it wasn't unilateral...it was the UN Security Council unanimously voting for it and continuing it. That's 13 countries (Cuba and Yemen abstained), all part of the organization that tracks genocide around the world! And you think they'd say something about the Bush/Clinton/Bush trifecta of Sanction Genocide if they thought it was happening. Maybe the sanctions had to do with other things than genocide? From the "Tougher" on, Resolution 687 This one was 12-1. Cuba voted no. Iraq signed the resolution in April 1991 as a condition of the cease-fire. How did it work? From the Washington Post: Holy cow. So sanctions imposed by the UN that meant to prohibit rearmament and arms proliferation, and which specifically did not include food or humanitarian aid, resulted in the elimination of Iraqi weapons. But as you say, at the cost of a bunch of lives. How does that happen? What does Clinton say about the sanctions? Your argument that the US is committing genocide (since I don't know that you'd follow the link to the definition, here you go) doesn't seem to work. Since you are insinuating that we are attempting to do any of the above, I'm going to need a bit more than your opinion to overturn my differing opinion based on things like facts and documents. But I don't see anyone thanking the US for removing forcibly from power someone who would allow millions of his people to die while lining his own pockets, or for the troops that fought (in part) to end the corruption and death, and to rebuild the SWET (Sewer, water, electricity and trash) infrastructure for the populace that had been neglected for 15 years. Will my evisceration of half of your argument cause you to acknowledge you were just kidding, or is this just a waste of time?
CNN, Pew, CBS, and even the evangelical Christian Gallup have said for many years that most Americans say the war was a mistake. http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm Wanna see 18 more pages saying the same thing for other polls, like Harris? Go halfway down the page where all the "Iraqs" are. http://www.pollingreport.com/Contents.htm You'll probably find one out of a thousand that backs you up and link that one.
I never said 1) sanctions killed millions (a half-million is the universally accepted number), 2) it was unilateral (you made that up too), or 3) the US committed genocide (I said that killing a few thousand isn't genocide).
Are you wordsmithing now? I know, I doubled it to give you the same courtesy you were giving me). "Sanctions" didn't kill millions. Saddam's starvation of his people killed millions. Bullshit. You said "If only a few thousand deaths comprise a genocide, what is Bush's (and Obama contributed a little, too) massacre of a million Iraqis." You didn't say "the UN's", or "us and the Brits", or even "the Western World", you said Bush and Obama like the sanctions were us Lone-Rangering the planet on our own whimsy. Which is patently false and proven above. You stated "Bush (and Obama contributed a little, too) massacre(d) a million Iraqis. History books may note this as the 3rd biggest non-war, non-provocation massacre in history, after the 6 million Jews and 4 million Armenians."...both of which are acknowledged genocides. I would say that it's keeping with the UN definition I gave you that massacring a million people based on ethnic, national or religious ideals IS a genocide. You're backpedaling. Which is fine, except that you're not saying you were horribly inaccurate.
It has been 50 years. Times change. The world is a little bit different. Now if you'll excuse me, the kids and I are going to take the Edsel, stop at the store to get some candy cigarettes, and then head to the drive-in. barfo
Brian, Post 53: The courtesy I gave you wasn't to double your numbers. (That wouldn't be a courtesy.) It was to allow you to halve, third, or quarter my numbers. My point was that they're still very big numbers, and it won't help you....Anyway, arguing about what comprises a "courtesy" won't illuminate anything. Let's get to the definition of.. Genocide: Skipping past whether my wording was understandable to you, let's get to what I meant. Genocide is when you almost wipe out a race. Maxiep said there was genocide going on during the Clinton years, and I said if Yugoslavia was genocide, what about Iraq. Now if I had then agreed with him that Yugoslavia was genocide, it would follow that I was saying that Iraq was, too. But any fool can see that I was saying that Yugoslavia WASN'T genocide. So it doesn't follow that I said that Iraq is genocide. To make this brief--I don't consider Iraq genocide, because it didn't almost kill off a race, which is the definition of genocide as I understand it. Yes, I'm surprised at their fury too. It is quite surprising that these guys think they're in the majority or something...You guys are too insulated from everyone else. Too much Fox and Drudge Report.
Back on topic. I didn't post the pictures of Obama to slam him. I think he's going to bow and smile at dictators, because that's his pay grade. I have no beef with it. There was a point to the thread - to see how defensive people would be over it.
The conclusion is you should put up the toilet seat after making poo. The reaction was pretty much what I expected. People were defensive, and dug up similar pictures of Bush or Rumsfeld or whoever.
Oh, okay. If it gets controversial, or if you're losing, you weren't serious. Well I wasn't really arguing about anything I believe, either. I was just playing a game, too, to see how defensive I could make people, too. You and I are just too cool for school. Let's you and I laugh at all these other bozos, Denny.
