Iraq quagmire?

Question

As compared to pre-invasion saddam's regime:
Todays estimated yearly death rate in Iraq: 45 per 100,000 people.

During Saddam’s long reign, the Iraqi death rate from democide (the government killing its own people) averaged over 100 per 100,000 a year. This does not include the several hundred thousand killed during the war with Iran in the 1980s.

Sounds like progress to me. And don't you think freedom is worth a price?

Why would saddam take the boddies to the mourge when he could just burry them in the desert?

Ahh bindo bindo bindo... Isn't less death better then more death?

Do you really think the killing would stop if we left?

And Mr. Morden: My husband, serving in Iraq, says that 95% of the people in Iraq like it a lot more now. Your welcome for the facts.

We all know the lancet study was found to have anti-war bias.

So what. It doesnt include those killed in the Iran-Iraq war.

Why can't it include the kurds?

Answer 1

Amen Paul!

Answer 2

Do you have sources to back up your figures? According to the Lancet study, they estimate that about 650,000 Iraqis have died since the 2003 invasion as a result of the invasion and it's effects on the country. That's about 160,000 per year. Saddam ruled Iraq for about 30 years. At that rate, he would have killed 4.8 million Iraqis. We all know that didn't happen. So, where did you get your numbers? Or did you just make them up?

You may "know" the Lancet study had a bias, but even the British government eventually admitted it was done using proper methodology. I'm sorry, I know how you must hate facts, but please don't pretend they're not there.

Answer 3

I purely don't get why there is to any extent further argument at this factor. there is one answer and one answer purely, get out of Iraq. despite it takes, do it. purely make beneficial it extremely is achieved as adequately as achievable for our troops, it extremely is time. 4 years, we've not gained something, and issues are purely deteriorating. we are scuffling with a phantom enemy we won't become conscious of until after this is too late and yet another American soldier dies. right this is yet another little pronounced fact approximately this conflict in Iraq, this is not any longer a conflict and that's yet one extra reason we won't in any respect win with protection rigidity means. If usa have been extremely at conflict, Iraq might have been decimated until now and the U.S. protection rigidity could be on top of issues. historic past tells us and the Iraqi human beings themselves are displaying us purely how deep the roots of their own non secular disagreements strengthen. scuffling with will bypass on despite if we are there or no longer, this is the curse of the middle-east, isn't god great? How unusual that's what's the actual underlying reason for each and all of the scuffling with in that area.

Answer 4

Funny thing about "facts," you kind of have to back them up, or run the risk of being thought of as pulling them from your butt.

Here's what some call a "link" to a "study" done by The Lancet:
http://www.zmag.org/lancet.pdf

From the abstract:
"The risk of death from violence in
the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% Confidence Interval 8·1–419) than in the period before the war."

Not 58 percent higher, 58 TIMES higher.

Sounds like the opposite of progress to me. And, my smug little friend, if freedom is worth the price, why don't you be the one to pay it? 1-800-GO-ARMY is toll free.

Or did you mean it was only worth a price for other people to pay?

Answer 5

"The death toll in Iraq following the US-led invasion has topped 655,000 - one in 40 of the entire population - according to a major piece of research in one of the world's leading medical journals.

The study, produced by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore and published online by the Lancet, claims the total number of deaths is more than 10 times greater than any previously compiled estimate."

If that figure is correct, that means 45 out of 1800 people. Divide that by 5 years and you get 9 out of 1800 people per year or 45 out of 9000 people per year, not 45 out of 100,000 as they would have you believe.

Yes, it certainly is progress if progress is defined as the decimation of a civilian population.

Answer 6

'Sounds like progress to me. And don't you think freedom is worth a price?'

Instead of posing that question to Americans and Europeans on YA, you should ask Iraqi's what they think. See if they define "progress" the same way you do. See if they were asked BEFORE the invasion if this was a price they were willing to pay.

All this assumes that your figures are accurate, something I'm not willing to concede without sources.

Answer 7

Not saying they are not better off. We are saying there had to be a better way to rid Iraq of Saddam and implement a government to take over. But the president you voted in got his panty's in a wad and couldn't wait to wage war. He should have had a plan in place before going in. But if you guys want to keep trying to tell everybody we are succeeding go ahead. The true Americans are seeing through this BS and are calling for a change.

Answer 8

its easy for you to put a spin on it
harder for those living in ruins and watching their loved ones dying
The average you quote takes into consideration the gassing of the Kurds, 15 years before the attack !!! On GhwB's watch

spin that

Answer 9

So the solution is to fight death with more death? What a great plan.

Answer 10

Actually, other estimates have that the other way around.

What is known is that morgue workers are saying that they have to deal with more bodies on a daily basis than at any point during Saddam's reign.