don't bother using Iraqi's thousand deaths as an argument on this forum. JU's regular users don't care about them - or so they told me often -

don't bother using Iraqi's thousand deaths as an argument on this forum. JU's regular users don't care about them - or so they told me often

I was also of the same opinion years back when I first started blogging on this site. However, I believe that with some exceptions, most bloggers on this site do care for the tragic deaths of civilians though they will not express it outright.

Yet the reuth must be told aZnd what better place than this.

don't bother using Iraqi's thousand deaths as an argument on this forum. JU's regular users don't care about them - or so they told me often -

Just as the anti-war people didn't care about them when Saddam was slaughtering them.

My guess would be that they wanted the killing be kept to a minimum, which was hardly accomplished by coming and shooting.

And the main answer that I get from Draginol & Co. when I argue about the death their governement's policy caused, in Iraq, Palestine and other places, the answer is "Why should I care?".

It simply underline my opinion that they live in their own bubble

Now Saddam was hanged for slaughtering 125 men at Dujail, but since the Iraq War began more tham 750,000 people have died and 2 million dispalced. Can we not say that with this record Saddam and his regime was far far better.

don't get silly, please, Saddam has caused the death of many, many more people than that.. Thousands would be a minimum.

But, also did the U.N.'s blockade enforced by the U.S.A... starvations kills a lot, doesn't it? Or does the statistics only consider them as "natural death"?



And you should not count the actual "total" death count, but the difference between this number, and the expected number if Saddam still had been in power.

Also, I hear a lot of people saying that these people have been killed by the U.S.A., which is ludicrous. Guerilla Warfare and terrorism are the true killers. However, the American Administration is responsible for those death, for having rushed into a war without any sensible plan for the post-war effort and pacification. They failed, and eventually everything went down the drain into a civil war.

Finally, I'd say the American People as a whole is responsible for their Administration's acts, and a single change of governement won't atone them overnight. They agreed to beleive that there were WMD, when the U.N. said there weren't. They agreed to beleive that there were chemical weaponry, that Saddam supplied terrorists when the head of the C.I.A. said that it wasn't likely. And they refused to see that every intelligent agent that countered the White House's point of view got cut out. They refused to hear the world's saying "NO! Don't go there!", and they despised France & Canada for refusing come along. (Freedom fries? mwahaha)

The problem is your numbers are not correct.

The problem is your numbers are not correct

I wish these figures were not true, but uhfortunately these happen to be the UN estimates and even American public figures have begun accepting the veracity of these estimates. Since the sectartian/sunni-shiaa clash began after the US for its own reasons started Shiaa identir=ty issues one can expect a backlash and that is exactly what happened.

I doubt they are true, and since these are only "estimates" with no proof, then they basically not.

lol. If the "estimates" would be between 50 000 and 100 000, would you deny that there is 50 000 deaths?

The problem about counting the deads in Iraq is, America destroyed pretty much everything looking like an administration or a governement when they got in. So no actual official information regarding the population was left intact.

So, the only thing that was still there about counting the dead was estimates. There will be probably never an absolute number. Do you still deny the deads?

After all, we don't know how many people died in the Holocaust. We just have estimates...

And, my previous arguments still counts. It's not how many people died that really counts, but how many more than if Saddam have been left in power.

I would like to respond to all responses above.



This is the craziest argument I have heard. The USA went into Iraq or at least justified its invasion stating the Saddam has developed WMD. After the "shock and awe, the invasion has led to the deaths of 750,00 man, women and children. The UN High Commissionert for Refugees believes that nearly 2 to 2.5 million people have been dispalced. At least Saddam paid with his life for his crimes: Whatr about the Bush-Blair duo.

Even the rank opponents of Saddam put the death caused by Saddam Hussein in the order of around 160,000 and that too spread over 20 years and excluding the Iran Iraq War in which USA supported Saddam Hussein. The Bush Blair led invasion has caused the completer destruction of the socisl and political infrastructure and had contributed hugely to the ongoing sectariaN violence.



The US adminstration is propping up a quislinmg regime which is hated by the average Iraqi and this governemnmt has strong ties with Shiaa death squads and therfore the US government has to bear responsibility for all the crimes that are now taking palce in Iraq.



This is not my figure, it is the UN estimate. In fact the number could be even hogher. The Journal of the American Medical Association a year back claimed a figure of 350 00 and since then several hundred thopusand have died.

Because it's the truth?  People, mainly the so-called anti-war activitsts didn't care one bit about Iraqi civilians before the war.  Now they act like they care so much, and it's just plain nonsense.


 

Most reasonable "estimates" put the numbers at a much lower figure, but of course you will use the highest number without backing it up.

I disagree with this statement and this is why. Saddam was tried, convicted and exicuted for the deaths of 125 people. Saddam was responsible for the deaths of 300,000 civilians, as well as hundreds of thousands of military people during the Iran Iraq war and another uncounted thousands in the Gulf war amd a few thousand more in the last war with Iraq. The 125 was only a representive sample not the only reason to kill him. The best count of people killed since the start of the war 4 years ago is 60,000 and that includes the people killed by Iranians and iraqis while fighting for dominance within the nation of Iraq.



How do you explain a single mass grave with a hundred thousand bodies? How do you explain one gas attack that wiped out five thousand in one village? You have your facts wrong I suggest you look away from hate sites and try news organizations that report rather than make up the news.

The best count of people killed since the start of the war 4 years ago is 60,000 and that includes the people killed by Iranians and iraqis while fighting for dominance within the nation of Iraq.

It is cleat to all international agencies includiong the UNHCR that the scale of human tragedy currently unfolding in Iraq is well beyond imagination. 2 million dispalced is the figure that even the US Governemnt accepts. Now the figure 750,000 killed since the start of the Iraq War four years back inlude (a) the initial killing following the scock and awe bombardment ( the pacification progrom launcehed by the US military in Anbaar Province and Fallujah (c) and the sectarian killings which are a direct fallout of the ill conceived US invasion.

How do you explain a single mass grave with a hundred thousand bodies? How do you explain one gas attack that wiped out five thousand in one village? You have

Now as for as Saddam killings are concerned it is only small change compared to what has happened in Iraq since the US led invasion. Nobody denied the fact that Saddam killed and trreated with utmost brutality his own people but then he did not claim that he was liberating Iraq nor did he claim that he was bringing in democracy. The killings in Iraq are the direct result of the US invassion abnd hence the USA must accept all responsibility.

Bahu, Bahu... It's evident you care, it really is. And I imagine it's quite hard for you here, dealing with the bias of most posters toward the so-called 'right wing' (except that there is no 'right' here in America, just as there is no 'left': just very confused conservatives and even more confused socialists, neither group knowing anything about the realities of what they claim to stand for).

What I find amusing, and rather sad, is the sense of outrage you and those like you appear to feel. Why? Don't you know that the World of Man has always been predicated upon desire, will, passion; that selfless interest in the greater good of all is a quality rarer than hens' teeth or horse-feathers? That conscience is so recent a development in the human character that it is powerless to overcome the innate selfishness of Man? That we are not naturally moral beings, but amoral and motivated by our interests and not the common good?

Do you really not know these things, or is it that you prefer to ignore them?

As to your point about the oil wealth of Iraq, I agree with you entirely. As Lenin said, if you want to understand the real causes of any event in world history (and certainly this sordid little war counts as a world-historical event) look at who profits by it. Once you know that, you know more than enough to judge the words and actions of politicians (any politician; all politicians) for what they are: the words and acts of men who, at their very best, seek only the advantage and interests of their constituents.

What I find amusing is that you seem to expect them to do something different; to do the thing that is in the interests of the many rather than the powerful few, and to be contrite when they are discovered not to have done that thing. Which is rather like being outraged when rain does not fall upwards but persists in doing what it always has.

Why should it do anything else? Because you want it to?