ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

151,00 doesn't equal half a million. I don't see how anyone can put it any clearer when it's been brought up in multiple debates that your Iraqi deaths number is off. "all it accomplished" honestly? I guess Democracy and the whole 'human rights' thing is all a waste of effort, right?

Pablo the Great | 04/24/08

look at these sites http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html it is more than just 151,000...a million more

theyoungdem | 04/24/08

Human rights? I forgot about the fine human rights shown in the abu ghraib situation.

theyoungdem | 04/24/08

Also if you say we went into this war to spread democracy, we'd be having wars in a lot of places then.

theyoungdem | 04/24/08

really, you're quoting "ANTIWAR.com"? You may as well quote the Chinese press on what's happening in Tibet.

Pablo the Great | 04/24/08

what about just foreign policy?

theyoungdem | 04/24/08

You're quoting something that is based on a survey of 9,000 families

theyoungdem | 04/24/08

youngdem, you are quoting something based off of this figure http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ multiplied by a rate derived from 1849 households, and citing this openly biased article as validation: http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

AncientMariner | 04/24/08

I didn't cite that openly biased article, I said up in the argument it is unsure, but it should be around above half a million deaths, even that biased article said that before that 1 million poll, the other one was still 600000. Either way its much more evidence than that one article shown by Pablo in a previous debate we had. However, the death count even if it is the 151,000, it is still a large number. Around 2750 died at the twin towers at 9/11, we were outraged foreigners came to our beloved country and attacked us, they thought it was "a just cause", we go to Iraq and cause 151,000 or more than 500,000 deaths, saying it is "a just cause"? I don't think you mean to, but you can't disprove my argument my showing me a site with a lower death toll.

theyoungdem | 04/24/08

Abu Ghraib was bad but it was one incident and does not compare to the thousands upon thousands of people that died at the hand of Sadaam before the war.

pessimisticallyoptimistic | 04/25/08

youngdem every time i see you make this arguement over and over again, it always seems to stay the same, WMDs, Millions dead, no victory yet. at least come up with something new to say. i'd jump all over you in this one, but i guess we'll just see what Moto says

MorgMcA | 04/25/08

Was Saddam a bad guy? Surely. Was Iraq a democracy before 2003? No. Will Iraq be better off because we intervened? Time will tell. But youngdem makes a good point (fourth comment; if I understand him correctly): From where do we get our authority to just go around ousting dictators we don't like? A lot of countries don't have a true democracy (including ours, but I won't get into that). Who's next? China? Venezuela? North Korea? Iran? We conduct our foreign policy in an extremely elitist, paternalistic manner, and it's easy to see why the whole world hates us.

DonkeyDude | 04/25/08

You mean like we did in Kosovo, where we had no vested interest whatsoever, yeah i agree. but there is alot more than just Saddam's ouster and subsequent nation-building. today, Al Qaeda and the US have made Iraq the battle of utmost priority. whether it started that way or not, it is now. an Al Qaeda failure in Iraq would send a morale-destroying shockwave thoughout the terrorist community as they would have proof of an islamic democratic country that actively and successfully fights terrorism.

MorgMcA | 04/25/08

Uh, Morgan, you are giving fundamentalist Muslims way too much credit for objective analysis. A defeat anywhere will just be a rallying cry.. as will a victory. It is utter insanity. Anyway, I wasn't really talking about what the situation in Iraq has become. I was addressing the ex ante reasoning/authority.

DonkeyDude | 04/25/08

Yes, I'm pretty sure a defeat of Al Qaeda anywhere would make them try to rally around even stronger and die for "allah." I believe in diplomatic reasoning, not just going off to war.

theyoungdem | 04/25/08

the same thing was said of the sunni militias. that they'll never listen to reason, that they'll never embrace the new iraqi government, that they'll stay allied with al qaeda til the end. that's not true anymore, now they are allies with the government and work very well with our men. yes there are radical die-hards, but not every single terrorist nor potential terrorist is a die-hard. not long ago a palestinian film was released, it followed the stories of two suicide bombers, who both at the last minute back out. everyone is capable of rational thought, it's more of a matter of which rationale will they believe.

MorgMcA | 04/25/08

Theyoungdem. What do you mean when you say there was order when Saddam Hussein was alive? I don't know a lot about him or Iraq, but wasn't he a dictator? I thought he killed a bunch of people with mustard gas and stuff. That doesn't sound like chaos.

Mike Hernandez | 04/25/08

oops I meant to say order. LOL

Mike Hernandez | 04/25/08

He was truly and evil man, don't get me wrong, I'd have want him to be out of power as the next guy back then, but his murdering of people invoked fear, making people not want to stir up any trouble, a terrible way to get order, but there was. They showed on CNN how many Iraqis prefered the Iraq under Saddam than the U.S. occupation, since they'd rather face the tyrant than have the country in shambles.

theyoungdem | 04/25/08

Where is moto?

MorgMcA | 04/25/08