The pics thread

[waif]

Obviously you don't read my blog. I covered this.

http://overwatch404.blogspot.com/2011/09/journelists-told-not-to-blow-jihad.html

A million Iraqis have died in the last 8 years. That is very very very different from a million Iraqis being killed by US troops. The number for injuries given is purely a guess. Once again, the problem is attribution - a huge chunk of these deaths and injuries are caused by terrorist attacks, crumbling infrastructure, etc. I feel like you are willfully misinterpreting that. I agree that the US has done a huge amount of damage in Iraq, and I have always opposed the war, but let's not make unsubstantiated claims like that.

 

[King Richard]

Well, if you include every year from 1991 to 2011, those numbers would have surely doubled. The US has been bombing Iraq for a lot longer than people realize.

 

[Dak]

A million Iraqis have died in the last 8 years. That is very very very different from a million Iraqis being killed by US troops. The number for injuries given is purely a guess. Once again, the problem is attribution - a huge chunk of these deaths and injuries are caused by terrorist attacks, crumbling infrastructure, etc. I feel like you are willfully misinterpreting that. I agree that the US has done a huge amount of damage in Iraq, and I have always opposed the war, but let's not make unsubstantiated claims like that.

Because terrorist attacks were rampant in Iraq under Hussein? And who bombed the infrastructure to bits? The US had been bombing Iraq since the early 1990s, not to mention the estimated half a million deaths of children under the age of 5, due to sanctions, which secretary of State Madeleine Albright said was "worth it".

Actual study those numbers are based on:

http://www.brussellstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf

Article on US sanctions:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

 

[King Richard]

Just saw this on the front page of Yahoo.

US soldier kills 16 Afghans, deepening crisis

 

[Der Morgenstern]

Surprised it hasn't happened more. Are you surprised?

 

[Dak]

Give that soldier a 1 way ticket to Uganda. Tell him he is Chief/Sole US operative in charge of finding and killing Kony. Apparently he fancies himself as a badass, should use that. I give him 2 days in the jungle.

 

[waif]

Because terrorist attacks were rampant in Iraq under Hussein? And who bombed the infrastructure to bits? The US had been bombing Iraq since the early 1990s, not to mention the estimated half a million deaths of children under the age of 5, due to sanctions, which secretary of State Madeleine Albright said was "worth it".

Actual study those numbers are based on:

http://www.brussellstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf

Article on US sanctions:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084

Did you read that study? They're saying that 650k people have died of violent causes since the invasion. The website using that study assumes that same death rate has continued and extrapolates to get to their current figure. That may well be reasonable, but nowhere in there is there a clear, reasonable estimate of how many Iraqis were killed by the US.

As far as the sanctions, obviously that's bad...but consider why those sanctions were in place. Let's not forget that Saddam was a bad bad man, and the world is a better place without him in it. I still don't think the invasion was worth it, and Iraq was better off under him, but again, let's not play fast and loose with our numbers here.

As for blaming the suicide bombings on the US...what are you, retarded?
Also, my understanding is that prior to the invasion Saddam was more or less at war with Al Qaida.

 

[Dak]

Did you read that study? They're saying that 650k people have died of violent causes since the invasion. The website using that study assumes that same death rate has continued and extrapolates to get to their current figure. That may well be reasonable, but nowhere in there is there a clear, reasonable estimate of how many Iraqis were killed by the US.

As far as the sanctions, obviously that's bad...but consider why those sanctions were in place. Let's not forget that Saddam was a bad bad man, and the world is a better place without him in it. I still don't think the invasion was worth it, and Iraq was better off under him, but again, let's not play fast and loose with our numbers here.

As for blaming the suicide bombings on the US...what are you, retarded?
Also, my understanding is that prior to the invasion Saddam was more or less at war with Al Qaida.

Sure Saddam was bad, but not nearly as deadly to Iraqi's as the US, especially when you consider the US empowered him in the 80s. The two Bush presidents have more blood on their hands than Saddam.

Yes, Saddam took as hard a stance against terrorism within Iraq's borders as Ghaddafi did. What's your point?

 

[waif]

My point is your claims are exaggerated.

 

[Dak]

Hardly. Lets say we cut the #s in half (I think there's plenty of reason to trend them upwards, as the sectarian violence continues, and the infrastructure is still in shambles), thats still several hundred thousand post-invasion, and Albright never countered the claim that 500,000+ children under 5 were killed by sanctions, so add in other ages, we have millions killed, just so we can get a "Bad,bad" man.

With friends like that, amirite?

 

[waif]

You are grouping victims of starvation, poor medical care, and terrorism in with victims of US bombings and shootings as if there are no other factors at play. By your logic the US is responsible for the deaths of untold millions in WWI and WWII because they entered the wars.

 

[Dak]

You are grouping victims of starvation, poor medical care, and terrorism in with victims of US bombings and shootings as if there are no other factors at play. By your logic the US is responsible for the deaths of untold millions in WWI and WWII because they entered the wars.

Actually they are.

Starvation, poor medical care, and unchecked/inflamed terrorism because of US sponsored sanctions and bombing for a couple of decades damn well makes the US responsible.

The US had no business in WWII, and CERTAINLY no business in WWI, the country has plenty of blood on it's hands from those two wars as well.

 

[Einherjar86]

Of course, Dak's not saying the US is solely responsible; obviously there are others at fault.

But it is true that US occupation and meddling in Middle-Eastern affairs hasn't helped the situation, and in most cases has likely contributed in part to many of the atrocities that take place there.

 

[Dak]

Of course. In the world stage, there are rarely, if ever, a group with "sole" responsibility.

 

[skeptik]

 

[waif]

The US had no business in WWII, and CERTAINLY no business in WWI, the country has plenty of blood on it's hands from those two wars as well.

I can't wait to hear your defense for that. You think we should have just said "it's all good, we had that coming" after Pearl Harbor?

 

[Dak]

I can't wait to hear your defense for that. You think we should have just said "it's all good, we had that coming" after Pearl Harbor?

It's not as simple as that, but it's also not really fodder for the pics thread.

 

[Einherjar86]

I can't wait to hear your defense for that. You think we should have just said "it's all good, we had that coming" after Pearl Harbor?

Are you implying that we were justified in the act of dropping two atomic bombs on Japan?

 

[arg]

we should have nuked Germany too. and today we should nuke the middle east and north korea as well. it would solve a lot of problems. NUKE EVERYONE!

 

[skeptik]

Think of the hookers, aug!