Posting numbers is pointless if they come from a non-reputable source.
I agree with you.
The Washington Post is just a bunch of Communists..
Yes, that number was repoted in the Post. Sure it was also published in a hundred other newspapers and TV stations as well. But the fact is, it initially came from one source (i.e. the newspapers were not doing their own studies).
But, before publishing them, they validate them, uh?
No, they do not.
Second, you have the site
www.iraqbodycount.com which, as I say, validates the hypotesis of 100000+ deaths..
Uhhh.. no. I think you're getting a little confused over dates and numbers...
Just to give you a time line...
- John Hoskins did a study (published in lancet) in 2004 that claimed 100,000 deaths. At that time, Iraq body count did not 'validate' that number; they actually had a number that was quite a bit lower (can't remember the exact figure, but it was in the 20-30k range). Furthermore, the number of 100,000 was contradicted by similar studies done by the U.N.
- Claiming that the current number listed in Iraq body count validates the 2004 estimate of 100,000 is wrong
becase they are taken from different time periods
- The more recent survey (from 2006) from John Hoskins uses the same flawed methodology as their first survey to reach the count of 655,000. It is THAT number that you have to compare Iraq body count with.
There are, to my knowledge, no other studies that give values anywhere near the figures given in the John Hoskins/Lancet studies, despite your earlier claims that their figures were verified by "other researchers".
Yes we did, by pointing out several flaws with the study, and by referring to other studies which provided contradictory data.
But, your conclusions were not posted in the Post, or in any other newspaper.
Can not see why..
Why?
Because newspapers often get stories involving science and statisics wrong. And because of the old saying "if it bleeds it leads". Sensationalistic stories get more press because they bring in more readers.
You can not expect to have a strategy before knowing exactly what the problem is. To whom an I speaking to?
I told you exactly what the problem is... Iraq is positioning military targets next to civilian targets, so that any 'precision' bombing, regardless of how careful, will result in the deaths of innocents.
Would you accept those deaths as the cost of handling Saddam? (Something tells me that if the U.S. did try such precision bombing, you'd be one of the first ones complaining about the U.S. killing innoncents.) Or would you leave those targets, thus encouraging Saddam to use even more civilian targets as human sheilds?
And since in other threads you seem to think that the invasion required U.N. approval, would you have a similar requirement for such precision attacks? Or would you consider it moralistic for the U.S. to engage in such military actions unilaterally? And if you say that U.N. approval is required, and it fails to act, are you going to accept the continued human rights abuses?
No, some (military targets) were placed next to power plants.
What about the others?
What about the others? Is it not enough that
some civilians were used as human shields?
No, Germany took an action that you agreed with. That is not necessarly the same as being 'right'.
More right than the US?
No, they took an action that they felt was politically advantageous. Morality did not enter into this at all.
The estimates of 20,000 to 40,000 are based on an estimate of 500,000 to 1 million deaths caused under Saddam's regime.
With the help of the US..
The most parts of the deaths above could have been avoided if some nations ( US included ) did not sell any gun to Saddam.
But, you are too ideologically involved, to realize this..
Fine.... the U.S. supplied 1% of Iraq's conventional arms, so they should be responsible for 1% of its deaths. Saddam can be responsible for the other 99%.
As for 'other nations' not selling guns to Saddam... remember, most of his conventional arms came from communust countries, countries that the U.S. had abolutely no control over.
Yes... we have a decade of experience in Iraq, where military targets were bombed regularly, the U.N. regularly interveigned in Iraq's soverignty, yet human rights abuses continued.
Fortunately, now, since soon after the invasion, the human right situation has greatly improved..
Actually, it has... there is more free speech, more freedom of religion, more economic freedom in Iraq now than there was under Saddam. And the current death rate, although unfortunate, is not as bad as when Saddam was in power.
So please point to
one area where people have less human rights now than under Saddam.
Of course, it is getting off topic... your original claim was that Saddam's abuses could have been stopped by precision military actions. I've already pointed out that a decade of such action did not stop such abuses. All you are trying to do is cloud the issue and avoid the fact that I've debunked your claim.
Perhaps you could be a bit more convincing if you actually came up with a plan that looks like it would work, rather than using the magical "There must be a better way" argument.
I have already written of various ways to deal with the problem.
No you haven't... In fact, whenever I pointed out specific problems with your 'plan', you've only argued that you "can't know strategy".
I do not think there has been over one million deaths after 1991
I never claimed there were. (There were some claims that that many people died due to sanctions, but I don't necessarily accept them.) But there were 10s of thousands of deaths, in large part due to direct killings. Those deaths were not stopped by continued U.S. and British attempts at stopping Saddam's abuses through low level military action like you were proposing..
But you're the one that said intervention in one case is somehow justified and intervention in another case is not. So where do you draw the line? 1 million dead? 2 million?
No.
No what? What type of answer is that?
I was not asking a 'yes/no' question... You brought up the issue of Rwanda and suggested that it was more worthy of intervention. You even mentioned the number of people killed. So, where is your justification? How do you measure when a case of human rights abuses is worthy of intervention and when a case is not?
Could the case be handled in a better way?
Maybe it could have, maybe it could not. If there was a better way, then I'd actually like to see an actual plan, not just the empty ideas that you put forward, where you avoid any hard questions.
Was the invasion of Iraq really necessary?
Why the US invaded Iran and not Rwanda?
Was the invasion of Rwanda necessary?
Sorry, but I do not recall you specifically addressing the possibility that the U.S. could have dealt with Saddam directly if Oil was the main reason for invasion.
No time to do search.
Anyway, I do not think the issue is very important.
By that, I assume you mean "I was wrong... I never did address that issue, now I want to hide the fact that I was wrong".
