The real cost of IRAQ: PTSD and the second war

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Doesn't it give you pause to think you're rationalizing tens of millions of deaths?

He's the problem with your reasoning UT. You worry about a paltry ten million (although the actual number is far smaller). I worry about first about the ten billion.

When you override well proven princples "to save people from themselves", then we have Iraq. We went in to save 24 million. Therefore we caused the deaths of 98,000 Iraqis. Where is the morality in that?

Not everyone wants democracy. Furthermore democracy does not necessarily create freedom. If it did, then how do you account for one of the world's greatest human rights violators in 1860 - the United States.

Democracy and freedom must be earned. If a country must sacrifice a few 100,000 to do so, then the democracy or freedom will be cherished. But they must do the sacrifice. They must prove that they want that democracy or that freedom. It must be earned - somethings with massive deaths - that that many others will not die.

Once a nation tries to impose democracy on another, then democracy has a routine habit of becoming tyranny.

IOW those who want to 'save' others - others who don't want to first save themselves - only then create Vietnams and iraqs. The two events are so stunningly similar right down to a national army that never stays for the fight and an insurgency that grows immensely faster than anyone can predict. This is what happens when some nation 'feels' god sent them to save others from themselves. It is also called a Crusade.

[Undertoad]

I guess we'll know in 9 days. How high does the voter turnout have to be to show they want Democracy?

[Undertoad]

Cat, nothing in your last link refers to a Post story documenting billions. Your first link casually tosses the number out like bait... without footnotes. Meanwhile, fucking Christ, all that Russian and French stuff is square on the books?

I got another thing in the "black budget": my dick. It's so big, it's undocumented.

[Undertoad]

And BTW tw, stop "big lieing" about the Iraqi body count, which even the Iraq Body Count says is about 17.5K max.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Cat, nothing in your last link refers to a Post story documenting billions. Your first link casually tosses the number out like bait... without footnotes. Meanwhile, fucking Christ, all that Russian and French stuff is square on the books?

I got another thing in the "black budget": my dick. It's so big, it's undocumented.

Dr. Buzzanco is associate professor of history at the University of Houston. He's the one who give the "billions" amount. The site the article is posted on is the History Network sponsored by George Mason University.

I haven't read the book that the article was excerpted from, so I can't tell you how he derives that amount. However, at least he's willing to give his name and is associated with a couple of legitimate outfits.

I'm sure your lady friends are pleased to discover you are so well-endowed.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And BTW tw, stop "big lieing" about the Iraqi body count, which even the Iraq Body Count says is about 17.5K max.

Your count (I believe) is based upon the known deaths due to combat and violence. But the British version of the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, published a more comprehensive report from work by Johns Hopkins, the Columbia School of Nursing, and the College of Medicine at Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad. These totals are attributed to those who died because of a US invasion. These include the many who are missing, died unnecessarily from diseases, etc. A real death count last year was determined to be about 98,000 Iraqi dead. Again, this is about as responsible a source as one can have.

One reason why those known death rates will be so much lower is demonstrated in the Lancet study. Of 61 violent deaths, only three involved actions by ground forces. 58 deaths were by "helicopter gunships, rockets, or other forms of aerial weaponry". Many who were killed would not make the official reports.

Then we have that 1 Jan 2005 article from The Economist. Often troops would just fire at innocents only because they might be a threat. If he is holding a cell phone as troops pass, then he was shot only because cell phone are used to explode roadside bombs. Where are all these deaths in that official counting? Remember, Americans in Iraq consider virtually everyone as potential enemies. It is that bad - just like Vietnam.

Brookings Institution says between 15,200 and 31,400 "killed as a result of violence from war and crime between May, 2003 and September 30, 2004." But violence only accounts for some of the deaths created by the illegal American invasion. The Lancet study did far more comprehensive surveys to obtain 98,000 deaths with a confidence level of 95%. Furthermore, the actual number is probably far higher. Falluja and Najaf - both had much higher than normal death rates and were removed from the statistical study as was An Bar provience and the region adjacent to the Syrian border. All had much higher death rates due to recent increases in violence.

IOW most deaths would not be reported in the standard 'body counts'. Bottom line - 98,000 is probably a conservative number. The number of dead Iraqi because they were liberated is actually believed to exceed 100,000. This is what happens when a nation is forcefully liberated. Even worse, this is what happens when the invading army was so poorly lead as to have no Phase Four plans.

In a country that tells its reporters to only report good news, the actual body counts are going to be higher. Welcome to Vietnam were the death rates are subverted by the political agenda. No UT, I did not lie. I simply provides a more accurate numbers. 98,000 dead and liberated Iraqis is a reasonable number.

17,000 is only the death rates we know of and only due to violence. The actual death rates created by an American invasion are far higher based upon statistical analysis, how many are killed by air and artillery (therefore not counted), and how Americans now shoot at anyone who might be a danger.

IOW "we had to kill the people to save them." Vietnam deja vu. 98,000 dead Iraqis is a more honest number. 17,000 dead - most dying after they were liberated - demonstrates the immorality of the illegal war.

[Undertoad]

If that is the case they should be compared against the number that would have died under Saddam, a practice I'm sure you would not agree with since you appear not to agree that Stalin starved people.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If that is the case they should be compared against the number that would have died under Saddam, a practice I'm sure you would not agree with since you appear not to agree that Stalin starved people.

Saddam killed about 200,000 over a ten year period. George Jr's war caused the death of about 100,000 in just over one year. You tell me which one is moral.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If that is the case they should be compared against the number that would have died under Saddam, a practice I'm sure you would not agree with since you appear not to agree that Stalin starved people.

If you're asking me to defend Saddam, don't bother, because I won't. As a US citizen, I am responsible for everything that my government does with my tax dollars, not what Saddam does with his. Saying we won't kill as many as Saddam, or that our torture is 'torture light' and therefore not as bad doesn't exactly seem be much in the way to wage a 'just war'.

In case you disagree and want to explore this further, I have prepared a few slogans we can use in the resulting campaign.

The Coalition - At Least We Haven't Raped Your Sister
The Coalition - At Least You Get to Keep Your Testicles
The Coalition - Less Than 100,000 Killed
The Coalition - Don't Worry About Us Staying Too Long - We Hate This (*&ing Place

[Schrodinger's Cat]

To continue with richlevy's line of thought, what the hell are we doing comparing civilian body counts in an attempt to prove which side is the one of the angels? One man kills 10 people; another kills 100. Does this mean the jury in the trial of the first man lets him off because it could have been worse?

Anyone who wants to argue US intervention in Iraq on humanitarian grounds is making a false premise. 14% of the population in Rwanda were killed in its recent civil war. No American intervention there was ever seriously considered, and Rwanda is but one of many recent historical examples.

[Carbonated_Brains]

*cough*SUDAN*cough*

[Schrodinger's Cat]

When Sudan starts producing more oil than Denmark, the US may become aware of humanitarian issues there. Frankly, I'm not holding my breath.

[Undertoad]

Cat, I have heard this argument applied over and over again and I still don't get it, please clarify: "If the US doesn't apply humanitarian principles to every single conflict in the world then it is not applying them in Iraq." How does this follow?

[Troubleshooter]

It may be a question of them even noticing a problem in an area unless there is some valuable resource there.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Cat, I have heard this argument applied over and over again and I still don't get it, please clarify: "If the US doesn't apply humanitarian principles to every single conflict in the world then it is not applying them in Iraq." How does this follow?

I can't speak for Cat, but our stated purposes for the buildup was that Iraq was actively building WMD's.

Our stated reasons for actually invading Iraq were:
Imminent threat of WMD attack from Iraq.
Imminent threat of Iraq processing nuclear materials.
Evidence of direct link between 9/11 and Iraq.

None of these have been proven beyond speculation. They have less of a basis in fact than evolution or creationism (ok, maybe not creationism).

The 'We went in to liberate Iraq' was a face-saving measure by the Bush administration. If we actually did go into Iraq to liberate it as our primary goal and the reasons given Congress were deliberate lies, than at minimum that is an impeachable offense and may even rise to Ann Coulter's (not mine) definition of treason.

If Cat is saying that this face-saving "Our intelligence was wrong but it was a good idea to invade anyway because we are spreading freedom" was applied to Iraq, or if the intelligence was cooked or over-stressed to gain the result of 'spreading freedom', than why aren't we 'spreading freedom' in places where the rule of law has completely broken down and people are being slaughtered in the streets, than I agree with her. The 200 billion and 11,000 casualties we are pissing down Iraq could have cleaned up most of Africa.