1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe problem with those figures is that they include fatalities from two wars. The Iraq-Iran war, which created 500,000 of the fatalities and the first Gulf War where the West inflicted around 100,000 fatalities. This leaves, call it, a quarter of a million fatalities due to straightforward internal repression. There is no particular reason to believe that Hussain would have fought any more wars between 2003 and 2011, the year of the Arab revolutionary wave. So this gives us around 10,000 a year for 8 years or of the order of 80,000 fatalities. There were rather more fatalities than that created by the invasion.
I don't know. Ask those Arabs who are attempting to overthrow the Iraqi government.
Don't forget to subtract the expected casualties Saddam would have inflicted (~30,000 a year, based on the the last thirty years of his rule - http://middleeast.about.com/od/usmideastpolicy/a/me090424b.htm).
What I can't guess is what would have happened during 2011 in Sadam's Iraq. He may have been overthrown quite smoothly. Maybe his population wouldn't have rebelled. Possibly he would have instigated a blood bath. It's likely that the fatalities would have been in 5 figures, but probably not 6.
I don't think you can justify the U.S. lead invasion of Iraq on the basis of a body bag count.
2 edits
Originally posted by SeitseHow does it feel to be responsible for this? It's the same feeling I had in high school right after the Viet Nam war, pretty sad. In both cases the right wing rammed through their rationale for war based on lies. We had to stop the spread of Communism, or they'd be at our doorstep (Viet Nam), We had to take out those weapons of mass destruction that threaten American security. (Iraq). In both cases, anyone questioning the need for war was dismissed as "not a REAL American" and their patriotism was questioned deeply. So many lies, so many needless deaths, so much waste of money and resources.
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Originally posted by bill718"THE RIGHT WING???"
How does it feel to be responsible for this? It's the same feeling I had in high school right after the Viet Nam war, pretty sad. In both cases the right wing rammed through their rationale for war based on lies. We had to stop the spread of Communism, or they'd be at our doorstep (Viet Nam), We had to take out those weapons of mass destruction that threaten ...[text shortened]... questioned deeply. So many lies, so many needless deaths, so much waste of money and resources.
You do remember that it was Kennedy who put "advisors" in place, and Johnson who kept escalating Vietnam without any plan to win.
I suppose it was "the right wing" that got us into WW1, WW2, and Korea?
And remember, Bush43 got permission from Congress twice with nearly unanimity from the left wing before launching on Iraq. Your short and faulty memory is noted.
NOTE: This is not to argue the correctness of incursion into Iraq. It is to set the story straight.
Originally posted by normbenignTo set the record straight, Bush hardly got "near unanimity" from the "left wing" before attacking Iraq. Even if you accept the dubious proposition that the entire Democratic party is "left wing", 111 Democratic Congressman (House and Senate) voted for the Use of Force Resolution and 147 voted against. 43% isn't "nearly unanimity"; for that, you'd have to look to the Republicans who voted 263 for and 7 against or 97% for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
"THE RIGHT WING???"
You do remember that it was Kennedy who put "advisors" in place, and Johnson who kept escalating Vietnam without any plan to win.
I suppose it was "the right wing" that got us into WW1, WW2, and Korea?
And remember, Bush43 got permission from Congress twice with nearly unanimity from the left wing before launching on Iraq. Yo ...[text shortened]... : This is not to argue the correctness of incursion into Iraq. It is to set the story straight.
Attacking Iraq had been on the neocon plate for quite a long time.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou failed entirely to address WWI, WWII, and Korea, as well as Vietnam, the last two with no Congressional declaration.
To set the record straight, Bush hardly got "near unanimity" from the "left wing" before attacking Iraq. Even if you accept the dubious proposition that the entire Democratic party is "left wing", 111 Democratic Congressman (House and Senate) voted for the Use of Force Resolution and 147 voted against. 43% isn't "nearly unanimity"; for that, you'd have t ...[text shortened]... raq_Resolution
Attacking Iraq had been on the neocon plate for quite a long time.
The Democratic vote for the use of Force resolution was most likely the greatest demonstration of bipartisanship in Bush43's presidency.
Bush used entirely the wrong reason for entering Iraq, as UN resolutions had already given permission for force. Again, this is not to justify the action but to set the record straight.
I personally thought the action was belated and for the wrong reasons. Also we stayed way longer than should have been and attempted "nation building" which is a fool's errand.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI didn't address them because there was real bipartisan support for the start of all except possibly WWI which was almost a 100 years ago. Do you want to debate the War of 1812 and try to use it as a wedge against the current "left wing", too?
You failed entirely to address WWI, WWII, and Korea, as well as Vietnam, the last two with no Congressional declaration.
The Democratic vote for the use of Force resolution was most likely the greatest demonstration of bipartisanship in Bush43's presidency.
Bush used entirely the wrong reason for entering Iraq, as UN resolutions had already given ...[text shortened]... tayed way longer than should have been and attempted "nation building" which is a fool's errand.
Your claim was demonstrably false and it took about a minute of internet research to establish that. For someone who claimed he was getting the facts straights, your carelessness with them would be shocking if someone didn't know it is your MO.
The UN resolutions did not authorize force and Bush's attempt to get the UN to do so went nowhere.
EDIT: The entry into WW1 had overwhelming support also:
On April 4, the U.S. Senate voted in favor of war by 82 votes to 6; two days later, the House of Representatives delivered their own yes vote by 373 votes to 50, formally announcing the entrance of the United States into the First World War.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/woodrow-wilson-asks-us-congress-for-declaration-of-war