Iraq Politics Debate!! Tame for now

[Hawk14]

http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html

Thought I should post this because it's important.

[SgtDrill]

Right. Because everything you read on the internet must be true.

[Aldin]

Another partisan opinion from the opposite side: http://newsbusters.org/node/8310

~Aldin, balancingly

[Hawk14]

on 2006, 600,000 dead.
now, 2007, many more dead.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by Hawk14

yeah, that was 2006, and 600,000 dead.
now, 2007, many more dead.

Hawk, I'm not taking sides here, but did you understand that the site I linked argues that the methodology for the death counter is flawed?

~Aldin, who imagines that there isn't a single politically charged "fact" that doesn't have a mirror opposite online

[Agent Minivann]

Originally Posted by Aldin

Hawk, I'm not taking sides here, but did you understand that the site I linked argues that the methodology for the death counter is flawed?

~Aldin, who imagines that there isn't a single politically charged "fact" that doesn't have a mirror opposite online

Something else to take into account is even if the supposedly inflated 600,000 is correct, and it was the highest estimate at that time, then the estimate linked in the first post almost doubles that in a years time. That sounds fishy to me. Just running general numbers of 400,000 divided by 365 that means that over 1000 Iraqis die daily. I think that would make news.

As a related side note it is a lot of fun to actually do the calculations on some of these statistics. There are a lot that really make you say BS when you do it.

[Onacara]

Sadaam killed over a million Kurds...but thats ok right?

[jaques]

2002 A.D.

Country A: 32 million people recently liberated from a repressive regime, welcoming us as heroes while their infrastructure lay in a shambles from decades of war and corruption. Known terrorists definitely in the region, including Osama Bin Laden.

Country I: 27 million people in three highly antagonistic ethnic groups kept in check by a repressive regime that our intelligence said was unlikely to use WMD against us unless invaded. Dubious/uncertain connections to terrorists.

Option 1: invest hundreds of billions of dollars rebuilding Country A, catching the terrorists in the area, and making ourselves look like a great group of folks throughout the muslim world.

Option 2: invest hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of our soldiers' lives invading Country I, causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths in the process, with every possibility of a protracted insurgency that will worsen, rather than improve, our standing in the eyes of islamic countries.

Which option sounds more sensible? Please note that Option 1 does not preclude us from keeping an eye on Country I and engaging in diplomacy to get larger numbers of allies on our side should a later invasion prove necessary.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by jaques

2002 A.D.

Country A: 32 million people recently liberated from a repressive regime, welcoming us as heroes while their infrastructure lay in a shambles from decades of war and corruption. Known terrorists definitely in the region, including Osama Bin Laden.

Country I: 27 million people in three highly antagonistic ethnic groups kept in check by a repressive regime that our intelligence said was unlikely to use WMD against us unless invaded. Dubious/uncertain connections to terrorists.

Option 1: invest hundreds of billions of dollars rebuilding Country A, catching the terrorists in the area, and making ourselves look like a great group of folks throughout the muslim world.

Option 2: invest hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of our soldiers' lives invading Country I, causing tens of thousands of civilian deaths in the process, with every possibility of a protracted insurgency that will worsen, rather than improve, our standing in the eyes of islamic countries.

Which option sounds more sensible? Please note that Option 1 does not preclude us from keeping an eye on Country I and engaging in diplomacy to get larger numbers of allies on our side should a later invasion prove necessary.

Wow! When you put it like that suddenly it all becomes so clear - how could anyone disagree?

~Aldin, who really does NOT want to see an Iraq debate here but appreciates jaques' willingness to demonstrate how polarized political debate can become online

[ej]

A shiny glass crater in the middle of that region would've made a great solar power station. But did anyone listen to me?

NoooOOOOOoooo.

[DingoDarkly]

Originally Posted by SgtDrill

Right. Because everything you read on the internet must be true.

I hear everything on wikipedia is true!

[Onacara]

Desperately trying to say something to get this thread locked