Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Iraqi war death toll 'at 655,000'

Iraqi war death toll 'at 655,000' (Page 2)
Thread Tools
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2006, 07:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
My point was that sanctions didn't help anyone. ... Suffice it to say, they were ineffective against Saddam Hussein.
The sanctions stopped Iraq from getting WMD. They therefore helped us, very effectively. We could have saved $2 trillion by continuing pre-war security measures (sanctions/no-fly zone, etc.). Except, even though Clinton had stopped Iraq from obtaining WMD, Bush invaded anyway.
     
Matius
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2006, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah
Worse conditions following war tends to do that. But then, you wouldn't know.
Give me a break, that doesn't cause a +60,000 in the incidents of heart disease and cancer. Any increase in the numbers of heart disease and cancer is probably due to the fact that there are more doctors (coalition and NGO) actually diagnosing these pre-existing problems. Medical care previously was much less comprehensive, especially in rural areas.
“Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2006, 10:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie
The sanctions stopped Iraq from getting WMD.
Tell us, how did the sanctions stop any such thing?
Esp when it was giving Saddam MORE money!
Except, even though Clinton had stopped Iraq from obtaining WMD
That isn't what Clinton said. Clinton said it was a complete failure.

I love history revisionists.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2006, 11:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin
That isn't what Clinton said. Clinton said it was a complete failure.

I love history revisionists.
Except that, this is not what he said in your quote. He said that Clinton had stopped Iraq from obtaining WMDs, inferring that it was in fact the sanctions which Clinton implemented which had done so.

You replied with "That isn't what Clinton said." So? What Clinton said is irrelevent! How does "what Clinton said" change what actually happened? His argument is focused on the effect of Clinton's actions, not what Clinton himself believed. Furthermore, your comment on history revisionists is not only laughable, but again relies on this complete misrepresentation of the argument. In another words, your posts' argument did absolutely nothing to combat tie's statements, however true or untrue they may have been.

Stop throwing around informal logic terms like you're suddenly an expert on the subject. You can't argue worth **** in a paper bag.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 15, 2006, 11:49 PM
 
CNN - Clinton demands total access for U.N. arms inspectors - February 17, 1998

And none of that had to do with Clinton's actions.

He was just spinning.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2006, 10:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by tie
The sanctions stopped Iraq from getting WMD. They therefore helped us, very effectively. We could have saved $2 trillion by continuing pre-war security measures (sanctions/no-fly zone, etc.). Except, even though Clinton had stopped Iraq from obtaining WMD, Bush invaded anyway.
UNMOVIC did not declare Iraq's full cooperation with disarmament prior to our invasion of 2003. The intended goal was not to simply keep Iraq from getting WMDs. We knew enough about Saddam and his interest in arms race with Iran to know that there was nothing, short of regime change that would eliminate the threat of WMDs. The US stated intention (H. W. Bush) was specifically to cause civilian discomfort to encourage insurrection against Saddam. The policy failed. The UN purpose of the sanctions were to coerce Iraqi cooperation with the UN and to cease aggressive foreign policy and human rights abuses. The policy failed on all accounts.

Criticism of the failures of this policy led to the Oil for Food Program as mentioned by ghporter, but this was while sanctioning was already proving a dismal humanitarian blunder.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2006, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy
UNMOVIC did not declare Iraq's full cooperation with disarmament prior to our invasion of 2003. The intended goal was not to simply keep Iraq from getting WMDs. We knew enough about Saddam and his interest in arms race with Iran to know that there was nothing, short of regime change that would eliminate the threat of WMDs. The US stated intention (H. W. Bush) was specifically to cause civilian discomfort to encourage insurrection against Saddam. The policy failed. The UN purpose of the sanctions were to coerce Iraqi cooperation with the UN and to cease aggressive foreign policy and human rights abuses. The policy failed on all accounts.

Criticism of the failures of this policy led to the Oil for Food Program as mentioned by ghporter, but this was while sanctioning was already proving a dismal humanitarian blunder.
See Kevin? Now that's a real argument, and a real response.

Try this article dealing with Blix's book for another look at the WMD situation, and at the US' apparent disinterest in political options.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2006, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Matius
Give me a break, that doesn't cause a +60,000 in the incidents of heart disease and cancer. Any increase in the numbers of heart disease and cancer is probably due to the fact that there are more doctors (coalition and NGO) actually diagnosing these pre-existing problems. Medical care previously was much less comprehensive, especially in rural areas.
Don't forget: The american airforce used tons of uranium shells against Iraqi tanks. Of course they deny any health-related consequences ( ), but we see an increasing number of radiation sickness and deaths in regions of former Jugoslawia.

PB.
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2006, 10:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton
See Kevin? Now that's a real argument, and a real response.
Greg the post I responded to yours was just a personal attack. Such posts don't deserve real responses.

And you are in no position to be lecturing me on how to respond to post properly. Really.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2006, 11:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Powerbook
Don't forget: The american airforce used tons of uranium shells against Iraqi tanks. Of course they deny any health-related consequences ( ), but we see an increasing number of radiation sickness and deaths in regions of former Jugoslawia.

PB.
I'm beginning to thing that we do need to get rid of these things. I know a Tungsten Carbide alternative has been developed.

On some level, I understand the resistance to replacing DU. It's really really effective. There isn't a more effective tank-killer round. Period. The military would trade the radiation side effects of DU for a material that had the same density and combustibility characteristics in a second.

For those who don't know, depleted uranium is of course, heavy, which is of primary concern for a kinetic energy weapon, as well as having a low melting point, which causes it to ignite on impact with armor and burn right through, spraying molten metal and armor shrapnel on the crew inside. The projectile itself is about the size of an old-fashioned Coke bottle.

IMO the scariest thing you could be on the wrong side of on the modern battlefield, and, as I said, I'm not even talking about the side-effects.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:53 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,