O'Reilly upsets Joy Behar and Whoopi

#256
#256
MontereyVol said:
How many were at the hands of Americans?
Click to expand...

I would imagine at lease 25 to 35% (if not more) are due to IED's. Those dead due to gunfire, who knows how many were killed by Americans or coalition forces as opposed to extremists.
 
#257
#257
VolBurgers said:
0, I'm sure.

I said nearly 100,00 civilians have died as a result of our invasion, and you asked me for a link.

Now, I provide you with a link and you change the argument. That happens a lot here.
Click to expand...

Then count it as a good year for the Iraqis that's fewer than under Saddam.

And you need to go reread my post you responded to, I haven't changed the argument.

PS have you looked at that link you provided? The little boxes below the graph. Did those come from Americans?
 
Last edited:
#258
#258
KB5252 said:
I would imagine at lease 25 to 35% (if not more) are due to IED's. Those dead due to gunfire, who knows how many were killed by Americans or coalition forces as opposed to extremists.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know percentages, my guess is the vast majority would be by the death squads and suicide bombers.
 
#259
#259
MontereyVol said:
I wouldn't know percentages, my guess is the vast majority would be by the death squads and suicide bombers.
Click to expand...

You're correct I assumed people would correlate IED's and suicide bombers and I shouldn't have. My percentages are complete guess. Still think it would be pretty close.
 
#260
#260
"Media reports" is listed as one of the means to gather totals. I question the reliability of gathering these totals. Considering the lack of coroners, death certificates, etc. I would seriously put a red flag on the reliability of any of this data. And looking at the motives of this group right off the bat I question their objectivity.

Should we also bring up the few hundred thousand Saddam was responsible for killing both among the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south? Those were deliberate and premeditated.
 
#261
#261
KB5252 said:
I would imagine at lease 25 to 35% (if not more) are due to IED's. Those dead due to gunfire, who knows how many were killed by Americans or coalition forces as opposed to extremists.
Click to expand...

70- 75% or 70-75,000 out of 100,000, died of gunfire. (again we are only talking about recorded casualties)However many of those you want to Attribute to United States to make you feel like "liberating Iraq" was a grand idea, have at it.
 
#262
#262
MontereyVol said:
1) Actually that was one of the key strategy points before the war started. One of the goals was to have Iraq become a democracy as an example to the rest of the ME.
Click to expand...

Brilliant idea. The mastermind behind that "strategy" should get two gold stars.

Also the key points were WMD and Al Queda, that's it.
 
#263
#263
VolBurgers said:
Brilliant idea. The mastermind behind that "strategy" should get two gold stars.

Also the key points were WMD and Al Queda, that's it.
Click to expand...

Since you don't need to see intel to know all the facts I assume you have volunteered your incredible skills as the Director of the CIA.
 
#264
#264
If our goal is to invade failed or evil states around the world and spend a trillion dollars and 4,400 lives in order to make them into stable democracies, then why aren't we invading Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Thailand, etc, etc? What have we gained in Iraq in return for our lives and treasure? An arguably less stable (albeit less brutal) regime than if we hadn't replaced a stable dictatorship, and a resurgent, increasingly powerful Iranian dictatorship that has destabilized the entire Middle East. Not a particularly terrific outcome.
 
#265
#265
VolBurgers said:
If our goal is to invade failed or evil states around the world and spend a trillion dollars and 4,400 lives in order to make them into stable democracies, then why aren't we invading Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Thailand, etc, etc? What have we gained in Iraq in return for our lives and treasure? An arguably less stable (albeit less brutal) regime than if we hadn't replaced a stable dictatorship, and a resurgent, increasingly powerful Iranian dictatorship that has destabilized the entire Middle East. Not a particularly terrific outcome.
Click to expand...

Democratization was a goal. The ultimate goal was stabilization of a strategic (oil) region over the long term.

I'm not arguing it was a good strategy but it was certainly part of the strategy from the get go - classic neo-con.

As to why not other countries? No sufficient reason is a key answer but also take a look at a map. If it had (maybe will) worked, Iran would be surrounded by democratic (or at least more predictably acting) states (Iraq on oneside, Afghanistan on the other). Doing this to Yemen has no real upside. Isolating Iran thusly does have upside plus you then have Syria bordered by democratic govts as well.

Worth it? Who knows but it was a strategic attempt at regional stabilization with a goal of ensure key resource flow to the world economy - one reason opposition from the West was tacit at best.
 
#266
#266
VolBurgers said:
70- 75% or 70-75,000 out of 100,000, died of gunfire. (again we are only talking about recorded casualties)However many of those you want to Attribute to United States to make you feel like "liberating Iraq" was a grand idea, have at it.
Click to expand...

Actually I would say at least 10k-20k were killed with a machete/sword/club/blunt object/lit gasoline/automobile. I am positive these are not in the US Army's or Marine's arsenal.

Have you ever heard of a dancing corpse?
 
#268
#268
volinbham said:
Democratization was a goal. The ultimate goal was stabilization of a strategic (oil) region over the long term.

I'm not arguing it was a good strategy but it was certainly part of the strategy from the get go - classic neo-con.

As to why not other countries? No sufficient reason is a key answer but also take a look at a map. If it had (maybe will) worked, Iran would be surrounded by democratic (or at least more predictably acting) states (Iraq on oneside, Afghanistan on the other). Doing this to Yemen has no real upside. Isolating Iran thusly does have upside plus you then have Syria bordered by democratic govts as well.

Worth it? Who knows but it was a strategic attempt at regional stabilization with a goal of ensure key resource flow to the world economy - one reason opposition from the West was tacit at best.
Click to expand...

+1 Good post.

I predict Iraq will look a lot like Lebanon 1975-1990, but I've been wrong before. And this will not stabilize the region, period.
 
Last edited:
#270
#270
VolBurgers said:
If our goal is to invade failed or evil states around the world and spend a trillion dollars and 4,400 lives in order to make them into stable democracies, then why aren't we invading Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Burma, Thailand, etc, etc? What have we gained in Iraq in return for our lives and treasure? An arguably less stable (albeit less brutal) regime than if we hadn't replaced a stable dictatorship, and a resurgent, increasingly powerful Iranian dictatorship that has destabilized the entire Middle East. Not a particularly terrific outcome.
Click to expand...

There are actually some good points here. Although I think the bolded claim is arguable.

What it boiled down to was Saddam continually thumbing his nose at the UN, the direct history of WMD use on Iranians and Kurds, and gaining a friendly government in a central middle east location. Obvious concerns with oil flow terrorism played into that.
 
#271
#271
MontereyVol said:
You run from adversity, who would have guessed?
Click to expand...

You're arguing something has no basis in reality, what else do you want me to say? "I would say 10-20k were killed by machete blalah blah..."

Big deal, I say 1,000 were. Prove me wrong

This is fun.
 
#272
#272
rjd970 said:
There are actually some good points here. Although I think the bolded claim is arguable.

What it boiled down to was Saddam continually thumbing his nose at the UN, the direct history of WMD use on Iranians and Kurds, and gaining a friendly government in a central middle east location. Obvious concerns with oil flow terrorism played into that.
Click to expand...
What is Iran doing now?
 
#274
#274
rjd970 said:
There are actually some good points here. Although I think the bolded claim is arguable.

What it boiled down to was Saddam continually thumbing his nose at the UN, the direct history of WMD use on Iranians and Kurds, and gaining a friendly government in a central middle east location. Obvious concerns with oil flow terrorism played into that.
Click to expand...

Saddam also had a propensity to attack his neighbors That made him the prime target. Yemen isn't of any strategic value and they cooperate with the US on terrorism, Saudi Arabia has a death grip on our energy sector, one week of disruption would send the US into a downward spiral, they also cooperate with the US, what can we do about Burma they arent going out of their borders, Somalia we did invade, and Thailand... why are they on this list?

Bham nailed it in his post on the reasons for Iraq. I would only add that Iraq was the safest route due to the fact that no one in the middle east particularly cared for the guy.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top