Oliver on the Iraqi death toll.

[danielk]

So... what if... just if...
the terrorists were quite justified in what they want (the US troops leaving) - even if they're not justified in the means they use?

Is it their country, though?

Anyway, you realize, I hope sincerely, that saving the Iraqi people from its Evil Dictatorship was never the real reason for this war. That that is just a feel-good-reason. It was all about the WMD that Saddam was supposed to have. And we all know how true that reason was.

Nah, I think there were a mixed bag of reasons for the invasion of Iraq. However, I would submit that WMD had the least to do with it. In my view the WMD issue was mostly intended a gesture to the old adherents of realpolitik, and to try to win over the NATO allies. I would pin it down to a combination of securing American interests and missionary zeal.

But I agree with you insofar that I believe the administration should have known better than to expect to be greeted with flowers. Also, combining self-interest with missionary zeal rarely goes over well with the recipients. I'd consider this to be basic common sense psychology, but alas... I guess "hubris" sums it up well.

Now, if it were nonetheless about saving this people from their evil dictator, then... there is still a lot of work to do in other countries. Lots and lots of work. (But see above for history's lessons)

Yeah, and that's why we're now in realpolitik mode again. Actually the US administration never really suspended realpolitik -- see Pakistan. Which is a shame on the one hand and a relief on the other.

 

[Pardalis]

Well, yes. Perhaps that is the next available interpretation. The first available interpretation, however, is that he is simply being dishonest or pointlessly obstinate. Further, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but since your post, Beerina has directly asked him what he meant. Instead of straightforwardly answering the question, however, he instead chose to dodge it indulge in further obscurantism and conspiracy theory.

Welcome to OliverLand.

 

[Oliver]

Well, yes. Perhaps that is the next available interpretation. The first available interpretation, however, is that he is simply being dishonest or pointlessly obstinate. Further, I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but since your post, Beerina has directly asked him what he meant. Instead of straightforwardly answering the question, however, he instead chose to dodge it indulge in further obscurantism and conspiracy theory.

What the heck are you guys talking about? I'm posting in
10 different threads in here and at Ronpaulforums. If you
have straight questions, sum them up - I'm losing oversight
switching between all those topics...

I'm not a Robot.

 

[Pardalis]

I'm not a Robot.

You're a Paulbot.

 

[Par]

I'm not a Robot.

This is about the most sensible thing I’ve ever seen you post.

 

[Oliver]

This is about the most sensible thing I’ve ever seen you post.

You obviously don't read that much in here, do you? Anyway,
what is this topic about? We don't even know what the death-toll
is. What is your honest estimation?

 

[Par]

You obviously don't read that much in here, do you? Anyway,
what is this topic about? We don't even know what the death-toll
is. What is your honest estimation?

One billion.

 

[Oliver]

One billion.

Americans killed millions in Vietnam and China - but Billions
doesn't sound realistic. The last estimations I take as being
serious are between 300,000 and 700,000 thousand civilians
being killed in Iraq.

But hey: The 3,000 civilians on 9/11 surely were a drama.

 

[brumsen]

Comparing death tolls alone can never result in useful information on which to base moral conclusions.

I would actually agree with you on that, provided "useful" is replaced with "complete". Oh wait, I take it that's what you mean to say as well:

You will always need to assess other factors. (Most notably, factors such as how many innocent lives were saved by those same actions, etc.)

HOWEVER, the point that you don't seem to (want to?) grasp is that my insistence that comparing death tolls only leads to a useful - if perhaps incomplete - result if one compares the actual invasion-situation with the hypothetical non-invasion situation is precisely motivated by the idea that in such a way a sufficient number of other factors is held constant. In my comparison there are at least reasons for thinking the number of constant factors is sufficient while in your proposed analogy that would not be the case.

Remember that it was you who started nagging me that I could not compare death tolls alone; that is your description of what I was doing. And it is an incorrect description given that I gave a fairly precise description of the situations between which the death tolls would have to be compared.

What you then did is to rip the idea of comparing death tolls "alone" out of this context by means of your "analogy", thereby implying that my proposal did not make sense.

The analogy shows that when death tolls alone are compared, counterintuitive – and indeed counter-rational – conclusions result.

Instead, if you want to criticise it meaningfully, you might have concentrated on either arguing that you did not know how to further flesh out this hypothetical situation, and therefore that it would be impossible to compare the death tolls; alternatively, you might have argued for a fairly precise hypothetical situation that the morally relevant differences with the actual situation were to numerous to arrive at a result of any interest.
Now, only if you were to do any of these two things - perhaps you have other ideas for criticism? - would you be able to conclude something like

a comparison of death tolls alone between the real-world post-invasion Iraq and a hypothetical contemporary Saddam-ruled Iraq would be equally useless.

 

[Matteo Martini]

One billion.

Not so many.
From 500 thousands to 1.2 million, according to the latest estimates

 

[Oliver]

Not so many.
From 500 thousands to 1.2 million, according to the latest estimates

Maybe you could provide a genuine link as well since many
in here are still in denial-mode?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Maybe you could provide a genuine link as well since many
in here are still in denial-mode?

I have provided many.
Now, it is up to them to provide a link that the civilians victims in Iraq were 200-300

 

[Oliver]

I have provided many.
Now, it is up to them to provide a link that the civilians victims in Iraq were 200-300

Fair enough .... ... and a great new avatar - by the way...

 

[Matteo Martini]

Fair enough .... ... and a great new avatar - by the way...

If he wins, I will eat a s*** and put the video right in this thread.

 

[Oliver]

If he wins, I will eat a s*** and put the video right in this thread.

I honestly doubt that he wins ... I guess that it needs another
decade before the Americans get back to the revolutionary spirit
to get their country and "We the People"-spirit back.

But let's see - Ron is doing quite good for someone who gives a
**** about the current "We the Lobbies/Corporations"-Government...

 

[Matteo Martini]

I honestly doubt that he wins ... I guess that it needs another
decade before the Americans get back to the revolutionary spirit
to get their country and "We the People"-spirit back.

But let's see - Ron is doing quite good for someone who gives a
**** about the current "We the Lobbies/Corporations"-Government...

I think that after the Iraqi war will be over, and after the whole fuss with Iran will be settled, they will not have enemies around to justify their 500-billion-plus-a-year army and their hundreds of bases around the world, and American tax payers will start to think about better ways to spend their money on..

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

.. You would be quite wrong. So would Oliver. Of course, not living in America, I will again, give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Matteo Martini]

.. You would be quite wrong. So would Oliver. Of course, not living in America, I will again, give you the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe, not living in America, we can judge things with a little bit of cool, not being brainwashed by the Republican warmongering propaganda..

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

The fact you call it brainwashing also supposes you may view it with an prejudiced eye.

(FTR: I don't watch news often, so I hvae little idea of what you're talking about)

 

[Matteo Martini]

The fact you call it brainwashing also supposes you may view it with an prejudiced eye.

(FTR: I don't watch news often, so I hvae little idea of what you're talking about)

We were speaking about the nonsense of having bases all over the world, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars per year.
Few people, outside the US, are happy with this situation.