Will Anything Good Ever Come From The U.S. Invasion of Iraq

[Flyndaran]

...
Current estimated body count of Iraqi civilians since the war started is between 93,323 – 101,835. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

The war caused the direct and indirect deaths of over half a million civilians. Destroying infrastructure killed people. You can't just sweep those deaths under the rug as not important just because they weren't killed by american made bullets.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Just skimmed your post GK, and it's kinda hard to find any sort of common thread other than bold reported and other 'they lie to us' implications.

That aside, after a quick skim shows that a substantial portion of your assertions are actually accounted for on the site linked to earlier as this takes into account suicide and other bomb related deaths as well as other violent deaths which regardless of actual examination are still recorded and factored in.

What stands out above that is the assertion that there are increased deaths due to poorer health care which is after all an incredibly subjective and therefore difficult to track statistic. Never mind that the US military is making substantial progress building/rebuilding infrastructure and medical facilities not to mention direct aid.

Also the fact that you're spewing out numbers concerning civilian death without contrasting it with friendly and/or hostile casualties, also failing to take into account that during an engagement as massive as the invasion of a city incorporating aerial and armored support on both sides (to an extent) means collateral damage (it's inevitable) while it's also true that these tools end the fight faster and more effectively therefore narrowing the window in which collateral death can occur.

When people fight a war, people die. That's not what's in dispute. What we don't agree about is whether or not good things will happen, the end result so to speak. Little to nothing in this thread proves anything other than the fact that war is uglier than we'd like while less ugly than it could be (maybe even less than some would have us think) as opposed to actual musings upon a projected course of improvement/degeneration from this point onward.

What annoys me the most is the assumption that one side automatically has a malevolent agenda while the opposition comprises nothing less than a band of heroes battling for truth and justice. I don't doubt that some people supported the war because their stupid, or for personal reasons, but I would be a crappy skeptic if I didn't hold both sides up to the same scrutiny.

Isn't it interesting how some of the same people decry the US for staying out of WWII as long as it did also piss and moan about the US not staying out of this situation? Granted, WW2 was a straight-forward conflict between nations, but there's still the basic situation of an aggressive/oppressive force attacking/oppressing others.

And yeah, it sucks that human suffering isn't enough to mobilize a government to do something, but if anything some here should be happy to know that most Americans are still isolationists who either believe we don't belong in Iraq anymore and/or never did, shouldn't have gone but need to see it through or honestly believe that Saddam posed an international threat. So chances are we'll leave the majority of the rest of the world alone to either succeed or screw itself in peace.

My own POV? Much of the populace was deceived wrongly to support the war for a variety of reasons we don't have the means to examine at the moment, the war was ugly albeit less so than it could have been, and now that we're there we need to see this through or else abandon the country to same kind of destabilization Somalia has suffered from ever since the US and UN decided to pull out.

rant ends...

[AdminAssistant]

Saddam Hussein was not taking those of a particular religion, political leaning, homosexuals, and other people "he just didn't like" and placing them in various camps which just happened to have big ovens to dispose of their bodies. The fact that Americans knew about concentration camps as early as 1939 and didn't do anything about it until we were personally attacked is what people get their panties in a twist about.

What will happen in Iraq? I don't know. We've taken the right step by handing the cities over to the jurisdiction of the Iraqi police. We've got to continue to phase gently out, gradually handing more and more of the responsibility over to them. Then, we can truly focus on Afghanistan, which we should have done in the first place.

[BroomJockey]

And, not sure if you didn't know, but the President is the highest ranking officer in the United States of America military. He could tell a five star general to lick his boots and he'd have to do it.

I did know that, which is why he's called "The Commander in Chief," and most (if not all) Presidents have had military experience. Doesn't change his hard-on for a good fight.

And I stand by my choice of wording of "abandoned" due to the massive disproportion of troops committed to each cause. If you'd done that with Afghanistan, then the area would probably be a hell of a lot more stable than it is now, and likely more stable than Iraq even is.

[Nyoibo]

The only reason he was supported...is because he opposed the Ayatollah. It was feared that Iran was growing too powerful...and supporting Iraq seemed the only option for stability in the region. Unfortunately, that means you sometimes risk supporting people with questionable motives.

And because he was seen as an ally against communist Russia.

What does this have to do with my point that we kicked some ass?

Because you said the war was against Al Qaeda and terrorism, Iraq had nothing to do with those things.

[Gravekeeper]

Just skimmed your post GK, and it's kinda hard to find any sort of common thread other than bold reported and other 'they lie to us' implications.

....er....you obviously didn't read it than.

That aside, after a quick skim shows that a substantial portion of your assertions are actually accounted for on the site linked to earlier as this takes into account suicide and other bomb related deaths as well as other violent deaths which regardless of actual examination are still recorded and factored in.

The site in question straight up states its an underestimate based on specific information that is incomplete. Whereas other estimates by other organizations are much much greater. That is my point. IBC relies on press reported morgue data.

Never mind that the US military is making substantial progress building/rebuilding infrastructure and medical facilities not to mention direct aid.

I would point you to my earlier post about statistics for access to health care, clean water and power and say no, no they aren't. Besides, they destroyed the infrastructure to begin with.

Also the fact that you're spewing out numbers concerning civilian death without contrasting it with friendly and/or hostile casualties-<snip>

We were talking about civilians, not friendly or hostile casualties. If you like though, hostile combatant casualties are estimated at 55,000.

When people fight a war, people die. That's not what's in dispute. What we don't agree about is whether or not good things will happen, the end result so to speak.

My point is it was an unnecessary, stupid war that has gone far beyond the point of "trying to find any good for" and is in total salvage operation mode now. No one had to die to begin with. None of it had to happen.

What annoys me the most is the assumption that one side automatically has a malevolent agenda while the opposition comprises nothing less than a band of heroes battling for truth and justice.

Who made that assumption? That whole situation is fucked. ><

Isn't it interesting how some of the same people decry the US for staying out of WWII as long as it did also piss and moan about the US not staying out of this situation? Granted, WW2 was a straight-forward conflict between nations, but there's still the basic situation of an aggressive/oppressive force attacking/oppressing others.

There is absolutely NO comparison between this and WW2. None. At all. Don't even go there, dude.

So chances are we'll leave the majority of the rest of the world alone to either succeed or screw itself in peace.

We can only hope.

[the_std]

So chances are we'll leave the majority of the rest of the world alone to either succeed or screw itself in peace.

Was this said with sarcasm? I ask honestly because that's how it seems to me. And, if it was, that's a great example of the American mentality that started this whole clusterfuck in the first place. Why is it your responsibility, nay, your right to go in and interfere with other places? I'm not talking about Iraq specifically, but this whole "hero" mentality that Americans seem to have. Why is it not okay to let other countries succeed or screw themselves, generally speaking?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

....er....you obviously didn't read it than.

Skimmed, and then read in detail as I went along after typing the intro, to be specific.

The site in question straight up states its an underestimate based on specific information that is incomplete. Whereas other estimates by other organizations are much much greater. That is my point. IBC relies on press reported morgue data.

Poking around a bit I find three claiming 100-150 thousand, one at 600-650 thousand and one at over a mil. They're all obviously flawed so it's hard to pick one to believe entirely though personally I place more faith in the non-opinion surveys so it's, to me, somewhere between 150 and 600.

I would point you to my earlier post about statistics for access to health care, clean water and power and say no, no they aren't. Besides, they destroyed the infrastructure to begin with.

I see no information directly pertaining to poorer health care, but will in the morning try to find some myself. Besides my point wasn't that there was no damage to the system, it was that Coalition forces are working to fix and improve it.

We were talking about civilians, not friendly or hostile casualties. If you like though, hostile combatant casualties are estimated at 55,000.

I haven't been able to find anything on that so a link would be appreciated, though I may be able to find more once these darn 404s stop popping up >_<

My point is it was an unnecessary, stupid war that has gone far beyond the point of "trying to find any good for" and is in total salvage operation mode now. No one had to die to begin with. None of it had to happen.

Unnecessary, debatable, I would have preferred something more measured, but there are those more versed in the field who say the whole thing would have been smoother if we had used more, so, who's to say at this point. It is in salvage mode because that's what comes next, we differ in that you say the clean up is hopeless while I'm somewhat less overtly pessimistic.

Who made that assumption? That whole situation is fucked. ><

Lots of people, thankfully no one here. And the situation is fucked up, it's the story of human history. I've got some ideas about how to improve the situation as do the commanders in the field... you got any?

There is absolutely NO comparison between this and WW2. None. At all. Don't even go there, dude.

Very little, mostly as a result of the entirely different scale. Actually, I was hoping someone would pull Godwyn's law and this thread would halt but apparently everyone here dislikes that rule as much as I do (in general).

We can only hope.

most def, although I would advise against trying to deduct foreign aid from ones' taxes.

Moving on,

Was this said with sarcasm? I ask honestly because that's how it seems to me. And, if it was, that's a great example of the American mentality that started this whole clusterfuck in the first place. Why is it your responsibility, nay, your right to go in and interfere with other places? I'm not talking about Iraq specifically, but this whole "hero" mentality that Americans seem to have. Why is it not okay to let other countries succeed or screw themselves, generally speaking?

Not really, I was telling the truth because as others have pointed out, there's plenty of genocide out there a-raging on and no one stateside gives a damn. That said, the American mentality of riding around like the cavalry IMO comes from the combined motivation of decent human beings to help one another regardless of nationality combined with the belief that we have the means to do so. Mostly this manifests as donations to the red cross, but when enough people believe that "busting some caps" is what's called for to tip the scale (mostly in the hands of various other groups) shit like this happens. It's like the person who tries to stop a mugging and gets themselves and the 'victim' stabbed. Good motivations leading to bad results.

PS: I'm surprised no one's commented on my Somalia analogy, despite being an African incident, I think it's sufficiently similar to warren a little thinking. Devils advocate, signing out.

[Greenday]

Hm, I think America overstepping its boundaries/being asked to do something could use it's own thread. Kinda derailing this one.

Still, the tone of this thread is that nothing good has come out of Iraq. I'm of the opinion that getting rid of an oppressive leader is a good thing. Especially one who has shown no remorse over using sick biological/chemical weapons.

[Flyndaran]

Hm, I think America overstepping its boundaries/being asked to do something could use it's own thread. Kinda derailing this one.

Still, the tone of this thread is that nothing good has come out of Iraq. I'm of the opinion that getting rid of an oppressive leader is a good thing. Especially one who has shown no remorse over using sick biological/chemical weapons.

But in a neighborhood with numerous bloodthirsty criminals, why should "you" choose one bastard and blow up the whole neighborhood to get him?

How arrogant to believe that it's the U.S.'s job to police the world.

[Gravekeeper]

I haven't been able to find anything on that so a link would be appreciated, though I may be able to find more once these darn 404s stop popping up >_<

Trying to dig it up, but am at work. >.> It was a US military estimate though. The Pentagon estimated 19,000 if I recall right but that was in 20o3. The military estimated 55,000. Truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Same with the civilian casualties.

Unnecessary, debatable, I would have preferred something more measured, but there are those more versed in the field who say the whole thing would have been smoother if we had used more, so, who's to say at this point. It is in salvage mode because that's what comes next, we differ in that you say the clean up is hopeless while I'm somewhat less overtly pessimistic.

No, its not debatable, honestly. The US is NOT the world's sheriff.

Its in salvage mode because it was a clusterfuck and the US is desperately trying to find something good to come out of it so the entire thing wasn't a completely pointless waste of life. Which it was. But its a very hard thing to accept that. Easier to cling to "Rah rah Saddam was bad, we beat em, AMERKA FUCK YA" patriotism.

I've got some ideas about how to improve the situation as do the commanders in the field... you got any?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. You have ideas to improve the situation on the ground in Iraq? Well, good for you? It is not my job to improve the situation in Iraq.

Very little, mostly as a result of the entirely different scale. Actually, I was hoping someone would pull Godwyn's law and this thread would halt but apparently everyone here dislikes that rule as much as I do (in general).

Yes, thankfully we've avoided a Godwin so far.

That said, the American mentality of riding around like the cavalry IMO comes from the combined motivation of decent human beings to help one another regardless of nationality combined with the belief that we have the means to do so.

It also comes from an arrogance of believing they know what's best for everyone else in the world. Meanwhile, half of these problems are the end result of their meddling to begin with. The US has been farking with the balance of power in the Middle East for decades. This is why they hate the US.

It has nothing to do with "Hating your freedom" or any of that bullshit.

[MergedLoki]

see i think if the US wants to see any real benefit out of the iraq 'war' they'll be there for YEARS. i'm talking like.. another 10 years if not more.

the simple fact is this. NO ONE (at least no one with a working brain) is arguing that saddam wasn't a bad guy, he totally was, and it's great he's gone.

but the war was started under false pretenses. (another thread not hijackin)

the biggest thing is. it's great that the usa wants to GIVE the people of iraq a democratic gov't. but you can't FORCE change on people. they will change when they want to change.

and i think that's the biggest issue and why progress in iraq is so slow.

anyone get what i'm trying to say here or am i too unclear?

[protege]

It also comes from an arrogance of believing they know what's best for everyone else in the world. Meanwhile, half of these problems are the end result of their meddling to begin with. The US has been farking with the balance of power in the Middle East for decades. This is why they hate the US.

Well, that and many of the nutjobs don't like our support of Israel

[guywithashovel]

the simple fact is this. NO ONE (at least no one with a working brain) is arguing that saddam wasn't a bad guy, he totally was, and it's great he's gone.

This is something I've had a problem with for a long time. I don't think anyone in this country---be they Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, Libertarian, Anarchist, or whatever---would like or support Saddam Hussein. However, I don't like or support Robert Mugabe, either, but that doesn't mean I think we should go barging into Zimbabwe after him. Asking "Well, do you still want Saddam in power?" when arguing for the war is a false premise, because you're only looking at one part of a very large equation.

[Flyndaran]

This is something I've had a problem with for a long time. I don't think anyone in this country---be they Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, Libertarian, Anarchist, or whatever---would like or support Saddam Hussein. However, I don't like or support Robert Mugabe, either, but that doesn't mean I think we should go barging into Zimbabwe after him. Asking "Well, do you still want Saddam in power?" when arguing for the war is a false premise, because you're only looking at one part of a very large equation.

Since Saddam was put in power by the american government, I think your statement needs a little clarification. Does no one else remember all the pictures of Cheney with Saddam?
The U.S. is no where near noble or uncorruptible enough to act as savior to the world.