BPSCG's Thread: Death Arithmetic in Iraq

crimresearch said:
Yeah, its not like Saddam ever forced anyone to pose nude or wear panties on their heads...you know, *real* torture.
Abu Grhaib was wrong. It always amazed me though that some actually equate those actions with Saddam's.

Given a choice between suffering the same fate of those at Abu Grhaib and those under Saddam I would have gladly taken Abu Grahib.
 
RandFan:
"Watching the election I felt that this effort could be very historical."

RandFan, I know how apt you are to get carried away by the benign intentions of your imperial rulers but before you do you could do worse than read this very interesting study of just how much power the occupiers retain here .

http://www.fpif.org/papers/0407iraqtransf.html

It was written after the July handover, but little has changed. Note the kinds of laws that the Iraqi government won't be able to change:

The (New and Improved) Bremer Orders
A sampling of the most important Orders demonstrates the economic imprint left behind by Bremer:

Order #39 allows for the following: (1) privatization of Iraq’s 200 state-owned enterprises; (2) 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses; (3) “national treatment” of foreign firms; (4) unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and (5) 40-year ownership licenses. Thus, it allows the U.S. corporations operating in Iraq to own every business, do all of the work, and send all of their money home. Nothing needs to be reinvested locally to service the Iraqi economy, no Iraqi need be hired, no public services need be guaranteed, and workers’ rights can easily be ignored. And corporations can take out their investments at any time.

Order #40 turns the banking sector from a state-run to a market-driven system overnight by allowing foreign banks to enter the Iraqi market and to purchase up to 50% of Iraqi banks.

Order #49 drops the tax rate on corporations from a high of 40% to a flat rate of 15%. The income tax rate is also capped at 15%.

Order #12 enacted on June 7, 2003 and renewed on February 24, 2004, suspends “all tariffs, customs duties, import taxes, licensing fees and similar surcharges for goods entering or leaving Iraq, and all other trade restrictions that may apply to such goods.” This led to an immediate and dramatic inflow of cheap consumer products, which has essentially wiped out all local providers of the same products. This could have significant long-term implications for domestic production as well.

Order #17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq ’s laws. Even if they do injure a third party by killing someone or causing environmental damage such as dumping toxic chemicals or poisoning drinking water, the injured third party can not turn to the Iraqi legal system, rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts under U.S. laws.

Order #77 established the Board of Supreme Audit and named its president and his two deputies. The Board oversees inspectors in every Ministry with wide-ranging authority to review government contracts, audit classified programs, and prescribe regulations and procedures.

Order #57 created and appointed an inspector within every Iraqi Ministry with five-year terms who can perform audits, write policies, and have full access to all offices, materials, and employees of the Ministries.

also, lets not forget that there are around 200 U.S. (mostly) and other international advisers who will remain dug in as consultants in every Iraqi Ministry well after any "official occupation" has ended.

Clearly, the Bremer Orders fundamentally altered Iraq’s existing laws. For this reason, the Bremer Orders are also illegal. Transformation of an occupied country’s laws violates the Hague regulations of 1907 (the companion to the 1949 Geneva conventions, both ratified by the United States), and the U.S. Army’s Law of Land Warfare. Indeed, in a leaked memo, British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned Tony Blair that “the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorized by international law.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the situation on the ground with that today?
Well, obviously, most of Bremer's orders still stand, excepting the ones barring the de-Baathification which he revoked in his final days there
There was an obvious impact and confilct with the idea of "free and democratic elections" here on the elections, since the "Coalition Provisional Authority" orders 92, 96 and 97 prohibited parties that are "associated with or indirectly financed by" any group that was ever armed, or any group judged to engage in "hate speech." Anyone judged by the electoral commission to lack "a good reputation" was also prohibited from running for office.

Meanwhile, more complaints are emerging about "irregularities" in the election, denying thousands the right to vote. There have been demonstrations involving "hundreds". Meanwhile, Tricky Dicky Cheney thinks the Shi'ites recently elected will insist on retaining the occupation . Is it wishful thinking or does he know something we don't?

Ask yourself.
 
demon said:
RandFan, I know how apt you are to get carried away by the benign intentions of your imperial rulers but before you do...
Good rhetoric. Are you saying that Bush is my imperial leader or just that he is my leader who is also an imperial leader?

Ask yourself.
Ask myself what? Transforming an entire country from a dictatorship to some form of democracy is no easy task. It is complex and messy. I would absolutely expect problems and it would not at all surprise me that mistakes would be made and that we would try and influence the country.

I'm not really certain what you think you have proven. I can assure you that I am not blind to the efforts of any administration. I don't know how much is a sincere desire to help the Iraqis and improve the region and how much is politics.

I think the odds are long. I'm not certain I would have made the same gamble. Now the gamble has been made I'm willing to hope the best for the Iraqis and not assume the worst about this administration. I never assumed the worst with the Clinton administration either. I'm funny that way.
 
Randfan:
"Now the gamble has been made I'm willing to hope the best for the Iraqis and not assume the worst about this administration."

Sometimes there is no talking to you.
I just gave you a list of Bremer`s edicts that show the real intention of the US Administration and you still say you`ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
You think the edicts are the product of an Administration that has the hearts and minds and well-being (the latter being the most important, according to all the well wishers here), of the Iraqi people as their prior concern?
How the hell do you reconcile them with promoting democracy?
 
demon said:
Sometimes there is no talking to you.
Spare me. I'm not too thrilled with propaganda and unwarranted conclusions. Look, I could be wrong. Unlike most others I freely admit that. But please tell me why I should assume your list proves something nefarious?

I just gave you a list of Bremer`s edicts that show the real intention of the US Administration...
The "real intentions"? And what are those and how does the list prove that?

...and you still say you'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
I don't viscerally respond to accusations. I have read your list and I don't think it proves what you think it does.

You think the edicts are the product of an Administration that has the hearts and minds and well-being (the latter being the most important, according to all the well wishers here), of the Iraqi people as their prior concern?
Please note that I said there might be politics and other motivations. I think there is likely multiple motivations.

What is it that you think your list proves? And spare us all the personal attacks and ad hominem. I will answer and questions and admit when I think I am wrong.

How the hell do you reconcile them with promoting democracy?
{sigh} I think I already did that.

Why don't you tell me what you think your list proves specifically and how and I will respond.
 
Randfan:
"I'm not too thrilled with propaganda and unwarranted conclusions"

Oh the irony....and you still support the war!

Whatever. We have been here before.
 
demon said:
Oh the irony....and you still support the war!
I accept that the administration engages in propaganda and has certainly come to unwaranted conclusions. I'm not too thrilled when they do it either.
 
General comment about "democracy in Iraq"
Good grief, I`ve heard it said that US has no 'real' influence in Iraq any longer.
It just has the largest embassy in the world under Team Negroponte.
The US 'advisors' installed in every ministry who're practically immoveable
The 150,000 troops under US command
The edicts of the CPA's dying days that will heavily circumscribe the actions of any Iraqi government for years to come
The economic 'liberalisation' that's well-nigh impossible to reverse The US's control of the reconstruction purse-strings either because the money is coming from the US Treasury or from the US-dominated World Bank and IMF

Makes you wonder what Iraq would look like if the US had 'real' influence LOL


Most human rights are defined almost exclusively in terms of individual political and civil rights - the other rights of the Universal Declaration, economic, social and cultural, have left the stage which is nice for corporate interests, isn`t it.
If the new order in Iraq tortures and murders more discreetly than Saddam and retains democratic forms like regular elections, the journos will be singing the praises of US interventionism for ever more. That mortality rates generally and, infant mortality rates in particular, along with morbidity rates are likely to sky-rocket under economic liberalisation won't be on their reporting agenda.

Democracy my ****ing ass.
 
demon said:
meadmaker:
"I don';t think it makes sense to do "death arithmetic" ."

And yet .... the deaths of three thousand Americans was seen as such an atrocity that it became the watershed from which America drew the outrage to unilaterally declare war on any nation it wished, inflicting any casualites it saw as fit for its endless wars.
Why did we even go to war if all terrorism is capable of at its very best is to be able to kill a few thousand of us? I mean, Bin Laden impressively kept the casualties in under ten thousand and he is on record as having said that the casuality magnitude was a mistake.


Why are we there if our enemies are way more impressive with their casualty figures than we are with ours? Your argument leads one to the conclusion that a few thousand casualites is really not a moral issue worth pursuing - so why are we pursuing it at all?

The issue is not the body count, whether dealing with September 11 or the Iraq war.

For me, the impact of September 11 wasn't related to the number of deaths. Watching those buildings burn, it was clear to me that those people had declared war on us. And by "us", I mean the American people, including you, me, and my wife and son. Those people were perfectly willing to kill any one of us. They hijacked four planeloads of people and deliberately killed all of them by using their planes as bombs. Those bombs were of course directed at evil bond traders, but I think that any of the rest of us could have just as easily been victims.

When it comes to the war on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, they fired the first shot and there is absolutely no hesitation in my mind that our actions in overthrowing the government of Afghanistan and seeking out Al-Qaeda elsewhere were not merely justified, but were part of a moral imperative.

Iraq was different. Iraq's threat was marginal at best, and was contained. The Bush administration overstated it, severely. Whether before, during, or after, the war, I did not agree with Bush administration rhetoric that said we had no choice but to respond to the threat.

However, there is also no doubt in my mind that a few things were true. First, Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator. Second, Iraq was not going to change without military force. Third, if a genuine democracy could take hold in the middle east, the future history of the world could be changed for the better, and the people of Iraq would be better off.

So, when the war started, I was cautiously optimistic. I knew that our forces would cause civilian deaths, and would take casualties themselves, but I had faith that civilians would not be targets, and our own casualties would be light. For that price, 25 million people would live in a democracy instead of a tyranny. That's a pretty fair trade.

What I didn't forsee was the subsequent events. I didn't forsee the mistakes that would jeopardize the possibility of the success of the mission. I do think that a lot of mistakes have been made in Iraq, and our mission is less likely to succeed because of them. Now, I am pessimistic. I'm not too concerned about the number of deaths, but I am afraid that when it is all over, those deaths will have been in vain, because Iraq will have traded one dictator for another. I hope I'm wrong. The elections give some hope, and with luck the outcome will be positive after all.
 
Meadmaker:
"Watching those buildings burn, it was clear to me that those people had declared war on us. And by "us", I mean the American people, including you, me, and my wife and son."

You say they declared war on you...not nice is it?
I`d like you to comment on the countries that the US has declared war on because of the atrocity you mention.
You seem upset by indiscriminate killing...so am I.

You mention "those people". Define who you mean and define who your government killed as a response.
I`m sick of looking at Afghan children who have no parents after B52 bombing raids.

Those from 9/11 have been well avenged...I think even most of the familes are sick of it...they know it`s about something else.
 
demon said:
I`m sick of looking at Afghan children who have no parents after B52 bombing raids.
Aparantly you were not sick of Saddam and his son's sadistic activities.

Are there still B52 bombing raids? Do the foreign insurgents bear any responsibility?
 
Randfan:
"Aparantly you were not sick of Saddam and his son's sadistic activities."

You see, I thought we had got beyond that.
You know what? **** you.
Lets see your documented evidence of Saddams tortures, his
son`s tortures, and all the rest of the tortures.
Mass graves too if you have the time you propagandist.
 
demon said:
Randfan:
"Aparantly you were not sick of Saddam and his son's sadistic activities."

You see, I thought we had got beyond that.
You are making no sense whatsoever. Get beyond what? What are you saying? We should accuse Bush of droping bombs on innocent people but ignore the fact that Saddam killed and tortured his people?

You know what? **** you.
Typical. Everyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong but worthy of your contempt. It seems no one is allowed to rebut your assertions or question you. Nice, real nice.

Lets see your documented evidence of Saddams tortures, his son`s tortures, and all the rest of the tortures.
I thought we had gotten beyond questioning Saddam's brutality. Do you really think it was all made up?

Previously posted by crimeresearch

"Pictures of dead Iraqis, with their necks slashed, their eyes gouged out and their genitals blackened, fill a bookshelf. "
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-04-13-saddam-secrets-usat_x.htm


"The home movies of the family of Saddam Hussein, including grisly scenes of torture, are proving a best-seller on the streets of Baghdad.
Some of the images show the dictator in a paternal role, smiling fondly at his brood and dandling their offspring on his knee.
But the kitsch sequences are interspersed with dark recordings of torture sessions and executions. In one, Saddam's son Uday is seen lashing the soles of the feet of a soldier with a rubber pipe as his victim screams with pain and begs for mercy. Eventually he hands the whip to a senior officer to continue the punishment. There is little doubt of its authenticity."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...rt24.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/09/24/ixworld.html

"The document listed Saddam's favoured methods of torture.
They included eye-gouging, piercing of hands with an electric drill, suspension from a ceiling, electric shock, rape and other forms of sexual abuse, beating of the soles of feet, mock executions, extinguishing cigarettes on the body and acid baths."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/12/02/sproject.irq.dossier/

"The punishments include fingers being chopped or shot off, tips of tongues being cut off, wrists being broken by sharp blows from a wooden rod, lashes by whip or cane, a bound man being tossed off a building, a beheading involving a sword and a knife and a man being humiliated by riding a donkey backwards."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101689,00.html

"Hussein torture victims are shown being flogged and having fingers chopped off. One detainee is filmed as he is thrown from a roof, another beheaded by a sword-weilding member of Saddam's elite Fedayeen unit.
According to the Post, video of the beheading shows a man placing the severed head on the victim's prone body. Another scene shows a man's tongue being cut out.
As NewsMax.com reported on Sunday, other gruesome images from the embargoed video include scenes of Kurdish detainees being castrated and babies being gassed to death."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/21/100312.shtml

"Human rights monitors for the United Nations have amply documented the savagery of Saddam Hussein. His eldest son and a possible successor, Uday, reportedly grew up watching his father punish political opponents as a way to control a large, diverse country. Uday, now 38, has earned his own reputation for violent behavior. In an Amnesty International report, Uday reportedly ordered that the hand of an Olympic committee security guard, accused of stealing sports equipment, be cut off. The missing equipment was later found. Similar incidents tied to Uday later became part of a United Nations report on human rights in Iraq."
http://espn.go.com/oly/s/2002/1220/1480103.html
 
demon said:
Mass graves too if you have the time you propagandist.
demon, you probably didn't know but after the fall of Iraq many, many people went looking for their missing sons and other family members. They were certain there were prisons hidden in the sewers.

Please see:

Filmmaker Examines Human Rights Abuses of Saddam's Regime

Stephanie Ho
Washington
13 May 2004


For decades, Saddam Hussein's regime killed what are believed to be hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and buried them in mass graves throughout the country. A new documentary film gives voice to relatives, survivors and witnesses, many of whom were too afraid to speak out before. VOA's Stephanie Ho reports.

The lone Iraqi woman in one scene makes a sound of profound despair. Her whole family has been wiped out by the Saddam Hussein regime. "I have no one left," she cries. The first several minutes of the new documentary Saddam's Mass Graves, depicts similar stories of ordinary Iraqis who lost many or all of their family members to the former regime's brutality.

The documentary is the work of Kurdishi-Iraqi director Jano Rosebiani. “When they were crying, they were genuinely crying, but their eyes were dry,” he recalled. “And we decided that they have no tears left.” He said at first, in the 1970s, the former Iraqi regime tried to keep the mass killings a secret. “But then it came a time, they were not only not secretive, but they were using it as an instrument of fear” he said. “For instance, they would be killing groups of people for an audience and force the audience to applaud. Or they would pile up bodies on roadsides as a warning to passerbyers, to create a state of fear.” In the film, one man who actually saw mass killings taking place says he remembers hearing the victims, young and old, crying. Meanwhile, Mr. Rosebiani said it was not hard finding Iraqis to tell him stories about loved ones being killed. “It wasn't hard finding people. You just knock on any door and if they're not victims, then they will point to the household that is,” he added.

Putting the film together, though, was more of a challenge for him and his crew. “It took close to four months and then another couple of months editing,” he noted. “We lived with it for half a year, kind of like living in a nightmare.”

International experts have so far uncovered more than 200 mass graves around Iraq, with a body count estimated to be at least 300,000. The film cautions that the painstaking work of identifying the bodies will be slow, though, pointing to Bosnia, where only 8000 bodies out of 30,000 missing people have been identified nearly a decade after the war there. The film's director, Mr. Rosebiani, added that the country's new leaders are preoccupied with the pressing issues that come with setting up a new government. Another immediate concern is helping the living in Iraq first, before dealing with the dead. “At the moment the main issue is security in Iraq,” he noted. “Another important issueto be dealt with is electricity and water supply. Then employment. These are the areas that need more immediate attention.” In the film, Tom Parker, a British special adviser for the Crimes Investigations unit, said in the long-term, the issue involves more than just exhuming mass graves and prosecuting the villains. “It's a social process as much as it is a legal process,” he said. “I don't think scars ever really heal in a lifetime. You know, the Holocaust still echoes down the history, down the decades. The same will be true of the events that occurred here.” Mr. Parker said for post-Saddam Iraqi society, adequately dealing with the mass graves is an important step on the road toward healing.
 
Skeptic:
"or one of the 400,000 dead in mass graves..."

Not so fast.
Blair made claims about mass graves found in Iraq and they are, like so much else, bogus. His press release on the capture of Saddam Hussein referred to -
"The remains of four hundred thousand human beings already found in mass graves."
(http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/page4995.asp)

Downing Street admitted in July that the true figure for bodies found was about 5,000.

Unless someone has found 395,000 corpses in the meantime - which I'm sure we would have heard about - it's clear Bliar is lying again.

quote:
Unrecorded victims
Tony Blair and others claim 300,000 bodies have been found in Iraqi mass graves. In fact, there have been no official exhumations - or count

Brendan O'Neill
Wednesday July 21, 2004
The Guardian

We now know that the public was misled over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. But have we also been misled over the even more emotive issue of Iraq's mass graves.
There are without doubt many mass graves in Iraq, into which the bodies of thousands of Iraqis killed by the Ba'ath regime were dumped over the past 25 years. Coalition officials have claimed that they contain the bodies of 300,000 Iraqis. In November last year, Sandra Hodgkinson, then head of the coalition's mass graves action plan, told the press that 260 grave sites had been located, which contained the bodies of "at least 300,000".

In comments and speeches, Labour ministers and MPs have repeated this figure time and again. Tony Blair told the Today programme in April: "We have found the mass graves of 300,000 people already in Iraq. It doesn't get a great deal of publicity, but it's true." At the end of last year, Stephen Ladyman, Labour MP for South Thanet, declared: "We are rebuilding a nation where we found 300,000 bodies in mass graves so far." According to Denis MacShane, minister for Europe: "We've now uncovered 300,000 bodies in mass graves, there because of [Saddam Hussein's] torture and tyranny."

Some journalists took such comments as evidence that thousands of bodies had already been retrieved. In a press conference with a senior US official on November 20, a journalist asked about Blair's claim that "400,000 [sic] bodies have been exhumed from Iraq". The US official said: "We've seen numbers that are in the hundreds of thousands. It's certainly absolutely at least 300,000 or more; it could be as high as ... 500,000."
For pro-war commentators, claims that there were at least 300,000 bodies in mass graves became the trump card in debates about the war, overriding the anti-war lobby's concerns about the failure to find WMD or the chaos caused by the coalition's military intervention. "According to the latest estimates, the mass graves in Iraq contain the remains of at least 300,000 people, but we're still arguing about whether the war was 'justified'," wrote Mark Steyn in the Daily Telegraph.

So what is the coalition's evidence to substantiate the numbers cited? The coalition's claims are based less on investigation and excavation than on guesswork.

Blair stated that the graves of 300,000 have already been found. Yet when I asked Joanna Levison of the US state department how many bodies have been exhumed, she said: "Through official procedures? None." Levison, who has taken over from Sandra Hodgkinson as head of the coalition's mass graves action plan, says that more than 270 grave sites have been reported and over 50 confirmed. At some of these there have been "community-led exhumations", where Iraqis have desperately dug around for the remains of loved ones, "but no coalition-led exhumations".

Jonathan Forrest of Inforce, the International Forensic Centre for the Investigation of Genocide at Bournemouth University, also says that no bodies have been exhumed, except unofficially by Iraqi communities.

Inforce is one of many teams of scientists from Europe that has carried out initial forensic tests on grave sites, to verify that they are graves and to estimate how old they might be. Forrest's team worked in Iraq for five months last year. "I do not believe that any forensic scientists have exhumed any bodies in Iraq at all," he says.

With no evidence by way of officially exhumed bodies, how did the coalition arrive at the estimate of 300,000 buried in mass graves? Levison says there is an "international consensus" that this number of Iraqis perished under the Ba'athists. Forrest believes that he might, inadvertently, have played a part in giving prominence to this figure. He says journalists in Iraq constantly asked his team how many were in the graves. "So we adopted the Human Rights Watch figure of 290,000, and rounded it up to 300,000."

Yet HRW's figure is an estimate for the number of Iraqis who disappeared under the Ba'athists, "many of whom are believed to have been killed" - not for the number buried in mass graves. HRW itself refuses to use its figure of 290,000 as an estimate for the number of bodies in mass graves. The group's senior researcher in Baghdad says: "How can we conclude that they are all in mass graves? We won't know that until there have been full-scale exhumations of the grave sites. There have been no official exhumations yet."

The estimate of 300,000 Iraqis killed by the Ba'athists also includes deaths for which the western powers arguably bear some responsibility. According to the US state department, most of the graves discovered to date correspond to five major atrocities committed by the Saddam Hussein regime: the 1983 attack against Kurds of the Barzani tribe; the 1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds, for which estimates of the numbers killed vary from 50,000 to 180,000; chemical attacks against Kurdish villages from 1986 to 1988; the 1991 massacre of Shia Muslims during their uprising at the end of the Gulf war; and the 1991 massacre of Kurds who fought for autonomy in northern Iraq after the Gulf war.

Saddam's brutal attacks on the Kurds in the 1980s occurred as part of the Iran-Iraq war, during which the Reagan administration supported and armed his regime. When that war ended in 1988 Saddam sought to consolidate his rule at home; in the Anfal campaign he sent forces to quell the Kurdish uprising in the north (supported by the Iranians), again with US consent. The massacre of the Shias in 1991 took place after they were encouraged by the first Bush administration to rebel following the first Gulf war, and then abandoned to their fate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Demon, from your own link

Yet HRW's figure is an estimate for the number of Iraqis who disappeared under the Ba'athists, "many of whom are believed to have been killed" - not for the number buried in mass graves. HRW itself refuses to use its figure of 290,000 as an estimate for the number of bodies in mass graves
So 290,000 disapeared they just were not in the graves.

Are you really sure that this has any real meaning? 300,000 dead are 300,000 dead regardless of where they are buried.
 
demon said:
[B
You say they declared war on you...not nice is it?
I`d like you to comment on the countries that the US has declared war on because of the atrocity you mention.[/B]

To the best of my knowledge, there was only one country we declared war on as a result of that atrocity. That country was Afghanistan. In my earlier post, I said I thought the overthrow of the Taliban regime was not only justified, but morally imperative.

The alleged connection between Saddam an 9/11 was a peripheral issue in the Iraq war. While it is probably true that we would not have gone to war in Iraq without 9/11, I would not say we went to war with Iraq "because of 9/11".

And if we've gone to war with any other countries lately, I guess I missed it.




You mention "those people". Define who you mean

Al-Qaeda, and the government of Afghanistan that supported and cooperated with them.

and define who your government killed as a response.

Many people in Afghanistan.


I`m sick of looking at Afghan children who have no parents after B52 bombing raids.

I don't always approve of the tactics used in prosecuting the war in Afghanistan, or the war in Iraq. But what is the point? I don't approve of the Allied decision to bomb Dresden, but in wars, bad stuff happens. The worst thing about indiscriminate killing in Afghanistan is not, in my opinion, the indiscriminate killing. The worst thing is that it jeopardizes the mission. Those kids might grow up hating Americans, and they might be willing to accept an anti-American dictator as a result. That would be tragic, because they have a shot a freedom, and they might throw it away.

Those from 9/11 have been well avenged...I think even most of the familes are sick of it...they know it`s about something else.

"Avenged?" Is that what the death arithmetic is all about? We've killed X for every 1 they killed, and X is high enough, so we can stop?

That sort of thinking wouldn't produce anything good. What we are doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere isn't about revenge. It's about achieving a desired result. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the regimes have been overthrown. It is our duty to try and do whatever we can to help those countries rebuild and restart with a just government. As was said in the campaign, "We broke it. Now we have to fix it."

For what it's worth, I think in Iraq the administration has done a lousy job of "fixing it". On the other hand, we are a long way from the end in Iraq, and we don't know the final outcome. As I have said repeatedly, if there is a happy ending, which would be a genuine democracy, George Bush gets the credit. If not, he gets the blame.
 
demon said:

Lets see your documented evidence of Saddams tortures, his
son`s tortures, and all the rest of the tortures.
Mass graves too if you have the time you propagandist.

You surely aren't suggesting that there were not tortures?

That there were no mass graves?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: BPSCG's Thread: Death Arithmetic in Iraq

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

:rolleyes:

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.

That was a fabrication. War propaganda. Lies told to get you all fired up with hate. It never happened. Lots of horrible things did happen, but the shredder was a lie of the same kind as the lies told before the first Gulf War about babies being torn from incubators.

Anyway, even though this is a deliberately manipulative appeal to emotion you are running here, let's analyse it a bit.

Suppose an American woman is forced to watch their husband being executed by the federal government, despite the fact that he is innocent. (In our hypothetical the US federal government is really evil). If that woman had to put a finger on how many deaths of innocent US civilians would be "worth it" to overthrow the US government and turn the USA into an economic colony of an overseas power, what number do you think she would come up with?

I don't know the answer, but I don't think you can assume that such a person would say "That sounds good, I'd certainly be happy if such a thing occurred and only one hundred thousand people were killed as a result". She might well even say, without being insane, "Are you kidding? My government is evil, but I don't want my country turned into a war-torn hellhole thank you very much, especially if you're going to loot the place afterwards".

So, worth it to whom?

I will try again.

The invasion and conquest of Iraq has caused, and will continue to cause, a huge but finite amount of death and suffering to innocent people. So did the sanctions before it. However, the Hussein regime also caused a huge but finite amount of death and suffering.

If the new regime is more enlightened and also manages to keep the new nation of Iraq stable and peaceful (cynics may insert laughing dog smileys here if they wish) then the amount of death and suffering prevented could in theory end up being greater than the amount caused.

That's the only sense of "worth it" that I can see as being objective enough to be useful.

Do you now understand what I mean by the phrase?
 

Back
Top Bottom