11-14-2015, 09:29 PM
(11-14-2015, 08:18 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: You mean, like you did? You said "hundreds of thousands" as if it were fact when, in reality, the number is very much in dispute.
The fact that the death toll for civilians is in the hundreds of thousands is very much "in dispute"---for people like you. However, for the organizations who have actually set out to record Iraqi civilian casualty numbers, it isn't in dispute at all. It's a bit like saying the theory of evolution is "in dispute". It's only being disputed by people who don't know what they're talking about.
Quote:And you implied all those deaths are attributable to the US which is, well, for lack of a better word a LIE.
Wait a minute, let's back up to what was actually said. You said:
(11-14-2015, 07:20 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't really disagree....but there is something to be said for the ineffectiveness of military intervention being due to overly handcuffing ourselves to rules the terrorists don't play by.
We literally spend hundreds of billions of dollars to spare sympathizers from collateral damage. Personally, I'm for more just wars and more collateral damage.
Note that you have offered nothing to support your claim that we "literally spend hundreds of billions" to spare "sympathizers" (?) from "collateral damage".
Then, I said:
(11-14-2015, 05:04 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: And yet still, somehow, hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq died.
Either we did not "literally" spent hundred of billions of dollars on sparing civilians, or the money is being horribly mismanaged.
There is nothing inaccurate about that statement. Pick your source; find just one that says the civilian deaths in Iraq is not in the hundreds of thousands. Newsmax or some blogger sitting on his couch doesn't count, of course; cite real organizations that either have feet on the ground to investigate or use scientifically acceptable methodology to calculate a number.
As for "all those deaths being attributable to the U.S.", pretty much, yes. The war was started by the U.S. The U.S. was not attacked by Iraq. The blame for the war and all its after effects are shouldered by the U.S. and its military allies that invaded a country without cause. The opposition in Iraq only exists for one reason: the U.S. gave them something to oppose. I guess this mystery "hundreds of billions of dollars" that goes towards sparing civilians didn't get invested in preventing a predicted insurgency from predictably costing civilian lives.
Of course, saying that makes it sound as though all the civilian deaths in Iraq are the fault of the opposition forces and not directly due to airstrikes etc. from the U.S. and its allies, which is also untrue. There has been plenty of what you callously call "collateral damage" directly due to U.S. military operations such as airstrikes. And even the highest of numbers of Iraqi civilian deaths have not been able to completely take into account deaths due to malnutrition and a depleted health system, another aspect the mystery "hundreds of billions" apparently failed to take into account.
Quote:One source, collated from newspapers, listed a little about 120k.
Notice that the lowest number you could find exceeds 100k. Also, really ask yourself if using commercial news reports like the IBC number you're citing did is a great methodology.
Quote:Coalition forces and Iraq reported 165,000 civilian deaths directly resulting from war violence. Other studies claimed 500k (which are including indirect causes).
The so-called "indirect causes" still only accounted for roughly 1/3 of the deaths in that study, according to the researchers.
Notice that, again, all of your numbers are over 100,000.
Quote:But how many are directly attributable to the US?
You'll have to define what you consider "directly attributable". How many died directly from, say, the U.S. dropping a bomb right on their house? Is that the only thing you would consider "directly attributable"? How about the U.S. dropping a bombs on farms, neighborhoods, plants, etc.? Do the civilians who die in those count?
I personally would tend to blame war deaths on the aggressors. There are some notable exceptions, but it's a decent rule of thumb.
Quote:Or is it that if you don't like what the sources actually say you just make up your own numbers?
Let's recap.
You said the U.S. spends "hundreds of billions" on preventing "collateral damage" to "sympathizers"(?) without any evidence at all. I said hundreds of thousands of civilians died in Iraq. You responded by citing a few surveys, all of which say over 100,000 civilians have died in Iraq.
Your conclusion? I'm making up numbers.
You've attempted to argue that so-called "indirect" deaths don't count, but haven't offered any solid reasoning why they don't, and certainly haven't shown why these "hundreds of billions" supposedly being spent aren't helping prevent "indirect" deaths.
I get it. As you said, you, like Ted Cruz, want to see more innocent people die. That's a completely insane position you have every right to hold, but there's no sense in making an even bigger fool of yourself through disputing a claim I make by posting proof that it was accurate.
Now let's get back to the topic at hand: the attack on Paris, made possible by the Iraq war you wanted more innocent people to die in.
