BPSCG's Thread: Death Arithmetic in Iraq

[Orsino]

Thread started at BPSCG's request, with my questions s/he didn't feel were appropriate elsewhere.

American military might has caused the deaths of somewhere near one hundred thousand Iraqis, Americans, and "coalition" members (never mind quibbling over the exact number, which will be carefully hidden from us as long as possible, if anyone even knows). Would Saddam have killed as many in the same time, had he remained in charge? Would he have tortued as many?

If anyone here really thinks that this was an acceptable bargain, I'd have to ask him: did you sacrific or even risk your own life to make it happen, or were you content to let others do the killing and dying? Were you personally inconvenienced at all while your tax dollars financed all the carnage and destruction?

So what does BPSCG, or anyone else, think?

 

[Rob Lister]

Thread started at BPSCG's request, with my questions s/he didn't feel were appropriate elsewhere.



So what does BPSCG, or anyone else, think?

Regarding the first paragraph, what does the time-frame have to do with it? Was Saddam capable/willing to kill that many if it suited his purposes? Most certainly. Had he killed that many already? Most certainly. Was he apt to do it again if he thought he could get away with it? The evidence suggests yes. Was he the threat (to us) we thought he was? Nope. Was he a threat? Yep.

Regarding the second paragraph, what does personal participation have to do with it? (Even though I gladly participated in DS and knew, with certainty, we'd be back.) Personal participation has nothing to do with judging the rightness (or wrongness) of an act. A better question would be ' would you be willing to participate if necessary/possible?'. My answer would be yes. But still, it is meaningless to the morality of the act.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Re: Re: BPSCG's Thread: Death Arithmetic in Iraq

Was he a threat? Yep.

Is that meant as something to make the war meritable?

 

[BPSCG]

Thread started at BPSCG's request, with my questions s/he

Wait, let me check.

Okay. It's "he."

didn't feel were appropriate elsewhere.

American military might has caused the deaths of somewhere near one hundred thousand Iraqis, Americans, and "coalition" members (never mind quibbling over the exact number, which will be carefully hidden from us as long as possible, if anyone even knows). Would Saddam have killed as many in the same time, had he remained in charge? Would he have tortued as many?

If anyone here really thinks that this was an acceptable bargain, I'd have to ask him: did you sacrific or even risk your own life to make it happen, or were you content to let others do the killing and dying? Were you personally inconvenienced at all while your tax dollars financed all the carnage and destruction?

So what does BPSCG, or anyone else, think?

Estimates of the number of Iraqis Saddam killed run from 300,000 to as much as a million. As is often the case with monsters like this, (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot), exact figures are very hard to pin down.

Link

And you have to add to that toll the number of people killed in the Iran-Iraq war, launched by Saddam.

Because both Iran and Iraq used irregular military units, attacked civilian populations, and played down their own losses while playing up those of their opponents, reliable casualty figures do not exist. For example, Iran claimed to have lost 200,000 or fewer of its own citizens, while Iraq claimed to have killed 800,000 Iranians. Neutral estimates come closer to the Iranian claim but are uncertain. Because of different battlefield techniques, Iraq’s deaths were probably about half those suffered by Iran. The total number of people killed almost certainly exceeds 300,000. Wounded and captured soldiers push the casualty total over one million, and some estimates of total casualties exceed two million.

Link

So to answer your question about whether Saddam would have killed as many, I think we can safely say "yes - a hell of a lot more."

And Saddam wasn't done yet.

Would he have tortured as many? As many as whom? If you're suggesting that any excesses the U.S. has committed in Iraq remotely resembles the vicious sadism that was a regular feature in Saddam's abbatoir, all I can say is, don't be ridiculous.

 

[Batman Jr.]

The death toll may not as of yet be as high as SH's, but the death rate is slightly higher.

Originally posted by BPSCG
Would he have tortured as many? As many as whom? If you're suggesting that any excesses the U.S. has committed in Iraq remotely resembles the vicious sadism that was a regular feature in Saddam's abbatoir, all I can say is, don't be ridiculous.

Abu Ghraib was pretty vicious.

 

[Orsino]

Re: Re: BPSCG's Thread: Death Arithmetic in Iraq

Estimates of the number of Iraqis Saddam killed run from 300,000 to as much as a million.

Like an idiot, I omitted the key questionsfrom the other thread, the very reason for the title of this thread:

How many lives were/would be "worth it"? Is there a maximum number of deaths, injuries or cases of torture beyond which you would look back and regret the war?

I'll also have to repeat my questions from the beginning of the thread:

What sacrifices did you personally make to support this war, if you did support it?

 

[Rob Lister]

The death toll may not as of yet be as high as SH's, but the death rate is slightly higher.

Abu Ghraib was pretty vicious.

I suggest you don't know the meaning of the word. The 'excesses' at abu ghraib were also prosecuted as crimes. Would you recommend less for Saddam's?

 

[Batman Jr.]

I suggest you don't know the meaning of the word. The 'excesses' at abu ghraib were also prosecuted as crimes. Would you recommend less for Saddam's?

Of course not. I was merely stating that Abu Ghraib was on many levels comparable to the acts of torture committed by SH.

 

[demon]

Orsino:
"Would Saddam have killed as many in the same time, had he remained in charge? Would he have tortued as many?"

And you could have also have asked if Saddam would have levelled whole cities like Fallujah? Imagine if Saddam had done that...people would be screaming that it was the war crime of the century!

I hope this isn`t derailing your thread too much but the question as to whether there was a credible, deliverable and morally supportable alternative to war in 2003 is a rather curious one anyway because it reverses an elementary point of both logic and morality. Namely, this:

We didn’t have to provide an alternative to war until the pro-war lobby provided a credible, deliverable and morally supportable reason for war in 2003.

This was never done. Iraq was clearly never a threat and if your answer is the suffering of Iraqis under Saddam Hussein then why was an invasion not proposed every year from 1991 onwards? More to the point, if the US and UK were so concerned about Iraqi suffering, why were they helpful in Saddam`s installation in the first place, why did they groom him from the fifties onwards, why did they provide him with a list of thousands of people to assassinate, why did they support him in the Iran-Iraq war, try and hide his culpability for Halabja, and arm him even more afterwards? And for the latter three components of that question, the application is directly to the current incumbents, many of whom served in the Reagan/Bush I administrations.

As a matter of fact, there were alternatives to the so-called war. If we follow the fraudulent WMD line, it was to keep inspectors in the country while cooperation increased and give them the extra few months they felt they needed. In fact, the US was terrified that inspections, which it had opposed because "Wolfowitz and his civilian colleagues in the Pentagon [felt] that new inspections -- or protracted negotiations over them -- could torpedo their plans for military action to remove Hussein from power." ( Washington Post April 15th 2002), were working.
Even if Saddam’s cooperation had been 100% immediately, as Blix pointed out “verification of it cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude, induced by continued outside pressure, it would still take some time to verify sites and items, analyse documents, interview relevant persons, and draw conclusions. It would not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm, if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programmes.”
UNMOVIC sadly was never given this chance because disarmament was never the objective -only the cover.


If we follow the humanitarian argument then the obvious alternative was to lift the sanctions on the Iraqi people and keep only those in place that prevented Saddam from developing weapons, not to mention step up the monitoring. What was so urgent about the situation that we couldn’t have given the Iraqi people a few years of relief to decide their own fate?

Given the level of destruction we have wrought on that country, it would have taken Saddam longer to kill as many as we have at his then current rate, not to mention avoiding yet another round of DU contamination.

The US and the UK knew they simply had a need that had no moral justification and it concerned neither weapons nor liberation.

So no, invading Iraq was not an acceptable bargin, most emphatically not.

 

[a_unique_person]

I suggest you don't know the meaning of the word. The 'excesses' at abu ghraib were also prosecuted as crimes. Would you recommend less for Saddam's?

I can't believe there are still people who think that a few 'excesses' at Abu Grahib is the extent of the problem.

http://randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52731

Have you ever heard of Camp Cropper?

 

[SezMe]

why did they provide him with a list of thousands of people to assassinate, < snip >

At the risk of derailing your derail, can you provide some evidence for this?

Thanks.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

OK, I'll take a stab at it!

American military might has caused the deaths of somewhere near one hundred thousand Iraqis, Americans, and "coalition" members (never mind quibbling over the exact number, which will be carefully hidden from us as long as possible, if anyone even knows).

It's instructive that, first you post this - "...caused the deaths of somewhere near one hundred thousand...", followed almost immediatly by this - "...if anyone even knows...". So which is it?

Would Saddam have killed as many in the same time, had he remained in charge?

Perhaps

Would he have tortued as many?

Perhaps

If anyone here really thinks that this was an acceptable bargain, I'd have to ask him: did you sacrific or even risk your own life to make it happen, or were you content to let others do the killing and dying?

I'm not "content" to let others do the killing and dying, but I am 45 and 40 pounds overweight. The Army doesn't want me.

Were you personally inconvenienced at all while your tax dollars financed all the carnage and destruction?

No.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: BPSCG's Thread: Death Arithmetic in Iraq

Link

And you have to add to that toll the number of people killed in the Iran-Iraq war, launched by Saddam.
Link

So to answer your question about whether Saddam would have killed as many, I think we can safely say "yes - a hell of a lot more."

And Saddam wasn't done yet.

Would he have tortured as many? As many as whom? If you're suggesting that any excesses the U.S. has committed in Iraq remotely resembles the vicious sadism that was a regular feature in Saddam's abbatoir, all I can say is, don't be ridiculous.

Given that Saddams armed forces were known to be largely rundown and decrepit, he was in no condition to start any new wars. The defeats and sanctions had effectively neutered him militarily.

Since you are so concerned about saving lives of people dying needlessly, how about a bit of concern for the Congo?

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: BPSCG's Thread: Death Arithmetic in Iraq

Wait, let me check.

Okay. It's "he."

You’ve always come across as very masculine to me, but since the change of your avatar I must confess to sometimes becoming aroused when reading your posts. I know it’s irrational, but the woman pictured is attractive and her beauty combined with your intellect is a potent combination. I understand the choice of your new avatar had more to do with celebrating an important milestone in Iraqi liberation than any projection of self-image, but ones reactions are not always governed by reason.

Which reminds me; are you seeing anyone?

 

[Jocko]

Maybe you two could double with Fool and AUP sometime. That would make for an interesting dinner conversation.

 

[SezMe]

Maybe you two could double with Fool and AUP sometime. That would make for an interesting dinner conversation.

ROTFLMAO. Jocko, I think you outta chaperon. Imagine the material for your memoirs.

 

[Matabiri]

Re: Re: BPSCG's Thread: Death Arithmetic in Iraq

It's instructive that, first you post this - "...caused the deaths of somewhere near one hundred thousand...", followed almost immediatly by this - "...if anyone even knows...". So which is it?

The death toll has been estimated to be in the region of 100,000 (the Lancet study, much maligned but never knowingly falsified). The error bars for this estimate are very large - three standard deviations cover from about 8,000 to nearly 200,000 dead. So the best and most rigourous estimate - not a guess - is around 100,000, but "exact figures" are not available.

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: BPSCG's Thread: Death Arithmetic in Iraq

How many lives were/would be "worth it"?

This question gets asked a lot, and I beat up Kevin_Lowe about it in another thread.

It's an incomplete question. "Worth it" to whom?

To the women who were forced to watch as their husbands and fathers were fed feet first into the metal shredders, I would guess the number would be very high.

To the men who were forced to watch as their wives and mothers were raped by Saddam's thugs, I would guess the number would be very high.

To the wives and mothers of American soldiers killed there, I am sure the number would be very low. To some of them; you keep reading about the families of soldiers who have been killed, who say they are proud of their sons' sacrifices and still believe the war was worth fighting.

And so on.

So, worth it to whom?

I'll also have to repeat my questions from the beginning of the thread:

What sacrifices did you personally make to support this war, if you did support it?

Realistically, very little (higher taxes is the biggest I can think of). Why is that relevant? If I didn't personally sacrifice, I get no say? Should the soldier who lost his legs get extra votes on election day?

 

[BPSCG]

Re: Re: Re: BPSCG's Thread: Death Arithmetic in Iraq

You’ve always come across as very masculine to me, but since the change of your avatar I must confess to sometimes becoming aroused when reading your posts.

Well, gee, Mycroft, I don't know what to say. I always thought I wrote reasonably well, but never thought my writing actually aroused anyone. I'm flattered.

I'm also utterly hetero. Hope this revelation hasn't caused you too much grief.

I know it’s irrational, but the woman pictured is attractive and her beauty combined with your intellect is a potent combination.

Oh, my...

I understand the choice of your new avatar had more to do with celebrating an important milestone in Iraqi liberation than any projection of self-image, but ones reactions are not always governed by reason.

My writing and avatar has clouded your reason?

Oh, my...

Yeah, I swiped her off one of your posts. It's one of those pictures that you'll remember for years after, like that incredible Chinese guy standing in front of the tanks at Tiannamen Square. She might have been flashing a V-for-Victory sign, but the whole picture was an effective flipping of the bird to Saddam and the "insurgents."

Was the war "worth the cost" to her, do you think?

BTW, she's only there until the end of the month. Ludwig van comes back after that. He's my oldest friend.

Which reminds me; are you seeing anyone?

Um, yeah, the witty, charming, intelligent, talented, and delightful Mrs. BPSCG.

Sorry...

 

[BPSCG]

Maybe you two could double with Fool and AUP sometime. That would make for an interesting dinner conversation.

Oof...

Why am I getting a visual of the poker game scene in A Streetcar Named Desire when Stanley Kowalski (Marlon Brando in the movie) finds out his full house wasn't enough to win the pot, and he lunges over the table and punches the guy who won the hand, and a free-for-all breaks out, with Stanley eventually getting dragged into the shower to sober up?