The war on "terror" is BS

[MaterialismSlave]

Why isn't governments doing a War on War instead of a war on terror. With current statistics of 2000 deaths by terror attack per year, it would take terrorists 500 years to kill as many as Iraq lost in 5 years.

The country lost 4% of its population. In comparison with the biggest terrorist act I know of in recent time, 9/11, which killed 0.00001% of American population.

I almost feel like a hippie when typing this, but I think the war on terror is way out of hand, and not where countries should focus their funds.

 

[Darat]

The term has been retired here in the UK and the phrase it is now viewed as a mistake by the government: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829946.stm

 

[funk de fino]

Why isn't governments doing a War on War instead of a war on terror. With current statistics of 2000 deaths by terror attack per year, it would take terrorists 500 years to kill as many as Iraq lost in 5 years.

The country lost 4% of its population. In comparison with the biggest terrorist act I know of in recent time, 9/11, which killed 0.00001% of American population.

I almost feel like a hippie when typing this, but I think the war on terror is way out of hand, and not where countries should focus their funds.

How many Kurds did saddam kill with gas? How many Shia marsh arabs did he kill and bury in mass graves.

Source for the 4% claim?

The name "war on terror" is wrong. The UK govt are saying this also.

 

[MaterialismSlave]

How many Kurds did saddam kill with gas? How many Shia marsh arabs did he kill and bury in mass graves.

Source for the 4% claim?

The name "war on terror" is wrong. The UK govt are saying this also.

Well it is more like 3.7%.

26,783,383 (July 2006 est.)
1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict.

"Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

If this is correct then Saddam killed around 1 million 24 years. 500k of those died in a war.

The war in Iraq killed 1 million in 5 years. 200k a year, while Saddam was killing between 20k to 40k a year (10k to 20k if you exclude his war on Iran). My guess is that most of Iraq population preferred Saddam to the war.

So a war with more causalities than the dictator produced in 24 years is in my eyes hard to justify.
Also remember this: He killed around 500k outside of the war, most of those died while he was a US ally.

Liberty and freedom is all good, but being worse than the dictator in the process, not so sure there.

 

[funk de fino]

Well it is more like 3.7%.

26,783,383 (July 2006 est.)
1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict.

Ah, wiki. Perfect source?? And you cherry pick the worst eh?

Please bring a credible source for your 4% claim.

If this is correct then Saddam killed around 1 million 24 years. 500k of those died in a war.

The war in Iraq killed 1 million in 5 years. 200k a year, while Saddam was killing between 20k to 40k a year (10k to 20k if you exclude his war on Iran). My guess is that most of Iraq population preferred Saddam to the war.

So a war with more causalities than the dictator produced in 24 years is in my eyes hard to justify.
Also remember this: He killed around 500k outside of the war, most of those died while he was a US ally.

You see to compare, you are going to need a better source or your post is nothing more than speculation.

Liberty and freedom is all good, but being worse than the dictator in the process, not so sure there.

Have you been to iraq? I have. Want me to tell you what a lot of the people told me?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Now you also have to seperate your deaths from the war and the deaths from non war terrorism do you not?

 

[MaterialismSlave]

Ah, wiki. Perfect source?? And you cherry pick the worst eh?

Please bring a credible source for your 4% claim.



You see to compare, you are going to need a better source or your post is nothing more than speculation.



Have you been to iraq? I have. Want me to tell you what a lot of the people told me?

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Now you also have to seperate your deaths from the war and the deaths from non war terrorism do you not?

Suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism triggered by a war should not be excluded from that wars casualties.

the link you posted on Iraq body Count says this:

IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘non-combatant’) deaths.

Who are the people behind IBC, what makes them a reliable source?

If this is true 100000 perfectly innocent people that didn't fight back has been killed.

Thats no way to show a war casualty, military and armed forces are humans as well.

Last October, researchers from Johns Hopkins University and Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad estimated that 650,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the war. The researchers used a method called cluster sampling. Teams of researchers went to randomly selected streets and homes around Iraq and asked people about deaths in their families. The hard numbers were then extrapolated for Iraq’s population.

President Bush and his political allies in the press and abroad have trashed the report, and the motives of those who carried it out — as if teams of researchers would risk their lives driving around Iraq just to spite the president. Others have said they don’t believe it simply because the number is so much higher than other estimates.

I don’t know how accurate the report is. I do know that cluster sampling is an accurate enough method of counting dead in conflict zones that the U.S. government uses it in its reports about places such as Congo or Sudan.

In March, documents obtained by the BBC show that the U.K. Ministry of Defence’s chief scientific advisor called the study “robust,” “best practice” and “balanced.” The British government ignored him, though, and like the Bush administration, trashed the report.

Link

So US and UK use cluster sampling for showing deaths when it serves their needs and dispute it when it doesn't, sounds logical.

Off topic: is there any pointers to what is considered a credible source when looking for info on the web? Would be good for me to know for the future.

 

[Twilek]

I've always hated the phrase because it just plain sounds wrong. We're fighting a war with terror? A feeling of fear?

If we're going to use a stupid catch-phrase to describe complicated issue, it should at least be called the "War on Terrorism" since that's what we're supposedly trying to prevent more of.

 

[Ziggurat]

So US and UK use cluster sampling for showing deaths when it serves their needs and dispute it when it doesn't, sounds logical.

That study was junk. Not because they used cluster sampling, but because it was uncontrolled, and used a very small number of clusters. They extrapolated a huge number of deaths from a very small number that they recorded - which is OK if your sample is representative. But no demographic information was recorded (which is standard for pretty much any sampling study), so we have no way of knowing if it is. And since the Lancet authors twice came out with numbers so much higher than any other studies (including the United Nations Development Program, which had an order of magnitude more clusters and did survey demographic info), there's damned good reason to think it is not.

 

[MaterialismSlave]

That study was junk. Not because they used cluster sampling, but because it was uncontrolled, and used a very small number of clusters. They extrapolated a huge number of deaths from a very small number that they recorded - which is OK if your sample is representative. But no demographic information was recorded (which is standard for pretty much any sampling study), so we have no way of knowing if it is. And since the Lancet authors twice came out with numbers so much higher than any other studies (including the United Nations Development Program, which had an order of magnitude more clusters and did survey demographic info), there's damned good reason to think it is not.

That sounds reasonable. I have tried to find any credible source on the web now but seems very hard.

Anyway no matter what the real body count is, war is still a greater problem to the world than terrorism in my eyes.
Not saying we should ignore terrorism, but we should never cause as many innocent deaths as terrorism do (2k per year) in the hunt for these terrorist organizations.
If we do, we are as bad as the terrorists.

 

[Pardalis]

Why isn't governments doing a War on War

A "War on War" is when countries go to war, but countries try to avoid that because indeed, the casualty list goes very high when this happens.

So if you want governments to go fight "War on War", you're actually advocating war itself.

Not saying we should ignore terrorism, but we should never cause as many innocent deaths as terrorism do (2k per year) in the hunt for these terrorist organizations.
If we do, we are as bad as the terrorists.

"Not saying we should ignore terrorism"? That's exactly what you are saying, buddy.

 

[dudalb]

"Not saying we should ignore terrorism"? That's exactly what you are saying, buddy.

But never expect those who think that to say so in so many words.

 

[geni]

Probably related to the popularity of the phrase "War on X" amoung US politicians. You are not meant to take it too literaly if only because haveing the president sign a surender document while sitting oposite a leafy plant a couple of poppies and a bit of blotter paper would unlikely to be considered acceptable.

 

[MaterialismSlave]

A "War on War" is when countries go to war, but countries try to avoid that because indeed, the casualty list goes very high when this happens.

So if you want governments to go fight "War on War", you're actually advocating war itself.



"Not saying we should ignore terrorism"? That's exactly what you are saying, buddy.

I don't mean a war on war in the terms of military actions. More like governments really thinking things thru and research all possible outcomes and see if the ends justify the means before even considering the possibility of a war. Nations not ignoring UN. Give population of UN a veto in voting for or against a war, if the outcome would be against it should require all or a very high amount of UN governments support to still go thru with the war.

Then during the war, there should be independent investigators with the military at all times to make sure no trigger happy rambo makes a mess.

If by ignoring terrorism = killing less people in the hunt for terrorists than the terrorists kill, then yes, I do say that.

If a terrorist was hiding in your town and military came and killed your kids in the process you would most likely change your opinion, pal.

 

[Pardalis]

I guess in your world the only war that exist is a war where people die. I don't mean a war on war in the terms of military actions, I doubt you dont understand that.

Then what do you mean? How do we fight the "War on War"?

 

[WildCat]

I've always hated the phrase because it just plain sounds wrong. We're fighting a war with terror? A feeling of fear?

If we're going to use a stupid catch-phrase to describe complicated issue, it should at least be called the "War on Terrorism" since that's what we're supposedly trying to prevent more of.

It's a misnomer. The US is not at war with all terrorist groups, only "those nations, organizations, or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons".

Anything else is a law enforcement issue, not a military one.

 

[MaterialismSlave]

Then what do you mean? How do we fight the "War on War"?

I don't mean a war on war in the terms of military actions. More like governments really thinking things thru and research all possible outcomes and see if the ends justify the means before even considering the possibility of a war. Nations not ignoring UN. Give population of UN a veto in voting for or against a war, if the outcome would be against it should require all or a very high amount of UN governments support to still go thru with the war.

Then during the war, there should be independent investigators with the military at all times to make sure no trigger happy rambo makes a mess.

Updated my above post with this.

 

[WildCat]

How do we fight the "War on War"?

You don't fight it, you play it! Like this:

 

[Pardalis]

I don't mean a war on war in the terms of military actions. More like governments really thinking things thru and research all possible outcomes and see if the ends justify the means before even considering the possibility of a war. Nations not ignoring UN. Give population of UN a veto in voting for or against a war, if the outcome would be against it should require all or a very high amount of UN governments support to still go thru with the war.

So there is war involved in this "War on War"? It's just a matter if you personally agree with it or not?

 

[SYLVESTER1592]

How many Kurds did saddam kill with gas? How many Shia marsh arabs did he kill and bury in mass graves.

I'm sorry...
What was your point? Is war on terror the same as war on dictators? Or maybe a war for democracy? Or against oppression?

If so, then I have a few more candidates for an invasion.

Did Iraq or Saddam really have anything to do with the "war on terror"?

Depending on your point of view any reprisals following an invasion would seem more justified then the primary invasion to stop terrorism.

SYL

 

[funk de fino]

Suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism triggered by a war should not be excluded from that wars casualties.

You wanted to seperate Saddams into war and no war, so whats the difference this time??

the link you posted on Iraq body Count says this:

Who are the people behind IBC, what makes them a reliable source?

Perhaps if you had done some real research before shouting your mouth off about a million killed you could have found this out for yourelf?

Why dont you try and find out who and what they are?

If this is true 100000 perfectly innocent people that didn't fight back has been killed.

And how many did Saddam kill again?

Thats no way to show a war casualty, military and armed forces are humans as well.

Not too many Iraqi military lost their lives because they all ran away.

Link

So US and UK use cluster sampling for showing deaths when it serves their needs and dispute it when it doesn't, sounds logical.

That survey that showed a million deaths has been quite rightly discredited. I am not apologising for the deaths, all the deaths are sad but you have to come with real facts and not just the first link you find on the net.

Off topic: is there any pointers to what is considered a credible source when looking for info on the web? Would be good for me to know for the future.

Try not to just look at one link. Look around and if you find something look a bit harder at what is says and search around for info on it.

I have been to Iraq. A lot of the people are glad the war happened.