Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehjonny)
    I haven't got a solution, I don't claim too
    Then how can you attack the only peace process which IS attempting to solve the problem. If you have a better idea, suggest it, if not, what would you prefer? To let it go on as it is?

    The fact is Cage, they have omitted mention of Jihad and the destruction of Israel and the Jews in recent political manifesto's etc. That does not mean that their men on the ground do not still wholly believe in these ideals.
    Firstly, you are applying a very bad western interpretation of what 'Jihad' means. Secondly, how can you possibly judge the intentions of Hamas thus when all the recent evidence indicates a willingness to engage in the peace process? Do you know something we don't?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    I think there is an acceptable loss. And I don't think fundamentally lying about what the real death toll is is helpful. Who do you think the IBC I referred to in my comment was? Given that I mentioned them, why would I need that link?
    So the US is only responsible for 75,000 deaths, no biggie, right?
    What when they weren't being gassed? Or living in fear the secret police would knock on their door to torture and execute them? Yeah, Iraq was full of happy bunnies and joy under Saddam.
    Both Iran and Iraq had cyanide gas at this time and were attacking a contested territory in the north. There is actually more evidence that the cyanide gas attacks were done by the Iranians than were done by Hussein.
    What when they weren't being gassed? Or living in fear the secret police would knock on their door to torture and execute them? Yeah, Iraq was full of happy bunnies and joy under Saddam.
    There are suicide attacks on a daily basis in Iraq now. Hundreds of people are killed every week. Tens of thousands have been gunned down and killed in the past few years. Burnt out buildings, explosions, gunfire, are all a normal part of life in Iraq. This was not the case before the invasion. People actually had jobs and lives and went about their day without having to duck and cover every twenty minutes.
    I gave you the numbers and where I sourced them. And I said I was close because I actually was, because I KNEW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
    You gave me some random quote, that is hardly empirical. Again, no meat from this guy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    So the US is only responsible for 75,000 deaths, no biggie, right?
    Unlike you, I don't declare a party responsible for deaths they're actively trying to prevent and which are being caused by other people acting from their own free will. Then again, I apparently have a lot more respect for your country and military than you do.

    (Original post by Kondar)
    Both Iran and Iraq had cyanide gas at this time and were attacking a contested territory in the north. There is actually more evidence that the cyanide gas attacks were done by the Iranians than were done by Hussein.
    Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja. That is what I was referring to.

    (Original post by Kondar)
    You are a moron. There are suicide attacks on a daily basis in Iraq now. Hundreds of people are killed every week.
    Not by US forces.

    (Original post by Kondar)
    Tens of thousands have been gunned down and killed in the past few years.
    Not by US forces.

    (Original post by Kondar)
    Burnt out buildings, explosions, gunfire, are all a normal part of life in Iraq.
    Not at the choice of US forces.

    (Original post by Kondar)
    .You gave me some random quote, that is hardly emperical.
    I took it from the site you told me to look at. If you bothered to go and look yourself (which you clearly haven't) you'd see that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Once again, to the best of my knowledge, there weren't hundreds of people a day dying from car bombs BEFORE the US invasion. Or perhaps the timing is purely coincidental?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Is it seriously too difficult for people to understand what actually constitutes responsibility for something? And how when people act off their own free will, in opposition to what another party wants, trying to hold the other party responsible for what they do is just bizarre. In law, the key phrase is "novus actus interveniens" - the acts of the terrorist are new intervening acts, they break the chain of causation. Furthermore, in International Law you can't hold a State legally responsible for the actions of a group who are acting against that State, even if they are doing so in that State. But apparently all rationality flies out the window when you people talk about Iraq. Apparently the line is that the US is equally responsible for a death whether it's soldiers actually kill the person, or its soldiers die trying to save the person. It's like a wet-dream for terrorists, the more people they kill, the more the US gets the blame for "causing" deaths, even though the US is trying to stop them. They literally can't lose propaganda-wise and thus have no reason to ever stop doing it. Well enabled there, guys.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehjonny)
    Upwards of 200,000 people were estimated to have been killed or "disappeared" during his rule, and at least a million more were killed during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) and the first Persian Gulf War (1991); he was dubbed the "Butcher of Baghdad" for the scale of bloodshed that he incurred.
    You posted a bunch of horrible pictures and an editorial.... I feel like I am watching Fox News. I take no effort to defend Saddam Hussein. Iraq was the most progressive nation in the Middle East (exactly what I said earlier and I stand by that) regarding minority rights (I still stand by that). The Kurds are not the only minority in Iraq, btw. Furthermore there is a great deal of evidence that Iran participated in gassing the Kurds as well.

    "This claim of Iraq gassing its own citizens at Halabjah is suspect. First, both Iran and Iraq used chemical weapons against each other during their war. Second, at the termination of the Iran-Iraq war, professors Stephen Pelletiere and Leif Rosenberger, and Lt Colonel Douglas Johnson of the US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds."
    http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%2...aseousLies.htm

    (If you are shocked easily, do not view these pictures. Kondar, keep denying man, and keep insulting the memory of the 100's of people reduced to bone in these pictures, you sickening piece of garbage).
    I never denied that these deaths took place, but they do not justify an invasion that has cost nearly a 100,000 Iraq citizens (most of whom did not gas anyone) their lives especially when the gas attacks took place nearly 20 years ago. Why not go back another hundred years to try and justify the Iraqis who are dying today.... you're a bright one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    Iraq was the most progressive nation in the Middle East (exactly what I said earlier and I stand by that) regarding minority rights (I still stand by that).
    OK, I don't know what planet you live on, but if you hold up Iraq to be defenders of minority rights, it must be a pretty weird one. I'm surprised they had time for minority rights, what with all the Kurd-gassing, Shi'ite-executing and mass-grave-digging.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    I never denied that these deaths took place, but they do not justify an invasion that has cost nearly a 100,000 Iraq citizens (most of whom did not gas anyone) their lives especially when the gas attacks took place nearly 20 years ago.
    In summary, this is the most important thing.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Is it seriously too difficult for people to understand what actually constitutes responsibility for something? And how when people act off their own free will, in opposition to what another party wants, trying to hold the other party responsible for what they do is just bizarre. In law, the key phrase is "novus actus interveniens" - the acts of the terrorist are new intervening acts, they break the chain of causation. Furthermore, in International Law you can't hold a State legally responsible for the actions of a group who are acting against that State, even if they are doing so in that State. But apaprently all rationality flies out the window when you people talk about Iraq. Apparently the line is that the US is equally responsible for a death whether it's soldiers actually kill the person, or its soldiers die trying to save the person. It's like a wet-dream for terrorists, the more people they kill, the more the US gets the blame for "causing" deaths, even though the US is trying to stop them. They literally can't lose propaganda-wise and thus have no reason to ever stop doing it. Well enabled there, guys.

    Nail on head.

    Those people defending the terrorists - yes, that is what you are doing if you pass responsibility on the the US - seem to be treating Iraqis as mindless barbarians. The US is not forcing them to kill each other - the US is trying to stop it!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizer)
    Nail on head.

    Those people defending the terrorists - yes, that is what you are doing if you pass responsibility on the the US - seem to be treating Iraqis as mindless barbarians. The US is not forcing them to kill each other - the US is trying to stop it!
    They were not killing each other until the US created the state of utter chaos which allowed them to do so! Something which should have been blindingly obvious to the US before they went Gung-ho into battle.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    ^^ Incorrect.


    They could have killed each other before - they chose not to (with certain qualifications, such as genocides and executions we don't need to revisit now surel). They could not kill each other now - they choose to.

    They is no getting around this - they are responsible, unless you think they have no rationality.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    In summary, this is the most important thing.
    If the only factor that matters is the amount of lives, I take it you think the US and UK should have surrendered to Hitler, seeing that this would save tens of millions of lives? And th US shouldn't have liberated Kuwait, since that caused unnecessary bloodshed as well?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    If the only factor that matters is the amount of lives, I take it you think the US and UK should have surrendered to Hitler, seeing that this would save tens of millions of lives? And th US shouldn't have liberated Kuwait, since that caused unnecessary bloodshed as well?
    No because Hitler actually did pose a threat to the rest of the world, and appeasement shouldn't have been used in the first place. As for the US, if they'd got off their backsides a bit faster we might have saved a few of those lives. Saddam Hussein never posed a serious threat to the rest of the world, and there is no evidence he ever would have done.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    No because Hitler actually did pose a threat to the rest of the world, and appeasement shouldn't have been used in the first place. As for the US, if they'd got off their backsides a bit faster we might have saved a few of those lives. Saddam Hussein never posed a serious threat to the rest of the world, and there is no evidence he ever would have done.
    Irrelevant. Your argument here is not that Hussein wasn't a threat, but that the US is responsible for the deaths in Iraq since it fought a war with it. You can't just change your argument for convenience's sake.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    If the only factor that matters is the amount of lives, I take it you think the US and UK should have surrendered to Hitler, seeing that this would save tens of millions of lives? And th US shouldn't have liberated Kuwait, since that caused unnecessary bloodshed as well?
    Alright, a) mentioning Hitler in a debate is an automatic forfeit and b) it would only matter if we invaded Germany twenty years after they left Poland.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    Alright, a) mentioning Hitler in a debate is an automatic forfeit and b) it would only matter if we invaded Germany twenty years after they left Poland.

    a) No it isn't, that is BS from usenet. It is a forfeit if you consistently rely on Hitler to support a fallacious argument... which Bismarck isn't.

    b) is a straw man - look again at the context that Bismarck is using Hitler in.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kizer)
    They could have killed each other before - they chose not to They could not kill each other now - they choose to.
    Much like us, they had a rule of law that prevented them from killing, stealing, etc... When we came in that rule of law was gone and Iraq became a lawless hellwhole. Now its Madmax with armored cars and explosions... Why don't you send me a post card.
    They is no getting around this - they are responsible, unless you think they have no rationality.
    Bonehead move of the century was the Bush administrations decision to dismantle the Iraqi army without having the soldiers relinquish their weapons. Basically they sent about 50,000 armed Iraqi’s a pink slip and told them to go earn a living some other way.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    Alright, a) mentioning Hitler in a debate is an automatic forfeit and b) it would only matter if we invaded Germany twenty years after they left Poland.
    You're changing your argument. If the US is to blame for all the deaths in Iraq because its entrance into the war allowed the violence to take place, then the US and the UK are to blame for all the bloodshed in WWII since they could have simply not fought back. Hitler would be more than happy to conquer all of Europe without firing a shot.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    You're changing your argument. If the US is to blame for all the deaths in Iraq because its entrance into the war allowed the violence to take place, then the US and the UK are to blame for all the bloodshed in WWII since they could have simply not fought back. Hitler would be more than happy to conquer all of Europe without firing a shot.
    No, you are changing the argument. The current violent situation in Iraq is due 100% to the breakdown of power that ensued when the US invaded Iraq and took out Saddam. End of story.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    No, you are changing the argument. The current violent situation in Iraq is due 100% to the breakdown of power that ensued when the US invaded Iraq and took out Saddam. End of story.
    And there would be virtually no casualties in WWII on the Western Front (heck, there wouldn't be a WWII) if the UK didn't declare war on Germany. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of people died as a result of the US declaring war on Iraq in 1990.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.