Oliver on the Iraqi death toll.

[Par]

Killing 500,000 for flawed intelligence or imaginary threats is what I call murder.
Oliver, when a Ba’thist, an al-Qaeda jihadi or a member of a sectarian death squad freely chooses to annihilate a marketplace full of innocent men, women children or to sink a power drill into the knee-cap of an Iraqi interpreter, why do you chalk that up as an American war crime?I don't.


So, how do you square the “Killing 500,000 for flawed intelligence or imaginary threats is what I call murder” and the “I don’t”?

[Oliver]

So, how do you square the “Killing 500,000 for flawed intelligence or imaginary threats is what I call murder” and the “I don’t”?


It's pretty unrealistic to name a suicide bomber a national threat
for a whole country while I agree that they're a threat and I see
no advantage of these acts.

But what is your argument here? We were talking about "a threat
to hundred thousands of lives" and I argued that there is no threat
coming from any non-western country until someone provokes it.

A suicide bomber surely is a problem - but certainly not a threat
to hundred thousands of people. And the most recent bombings
I remember in the US came from citizens, not foreigners.


What's the point - what are you opposed to? Do you really care
about a suicide bomber in Israel or Syria?

[Par]

I think you must misunderstand.

You claimed that those killed in Iraq were murdered by those fighting on behalf of “flawed intelligence or imaginary threats” or, in other words, by the Americans or coalition forces in general. Why are you laying the blame for the vast swathes of intentional slaughter by jihadis and their cohorts at the feet of America and its allies?

[Oliver]

I think you must misunderstand.

You claimed that those killed in Iraq were murdered by those fighting on behalf of “flawed intelligence or imaginary threats” or, in other words, by the Americans or coalition forces in general. Why are you laying the blame for the vast swathes of intentional slaughter by jihadis and their cohorts at the feet of America and its allies?


Because it's the result of the instabillity caused by the invasion
of Iraq. Your pal Cheney knew that almost a DECADE before the
invasion of Iraq:

6BEsZMvrq-I
Do you even understand that they lied to you - reviewing this
hard evidence?

[Par]

Certain groups in Iraq are freely choosing to blow to bits and to torture to death as many innocent people as they can. You, however, wish to claim that these victims have been killed by the Americans. Innocents are being killed by one group, and you claim that they have been killed by another. Why?

(Incidentally, you have no clue whatsoever as to what I think about Cheney, the Republicans, Iraq or American foreign policy in general.)

[Oliver]

Certain groups in Iraq are freely choosing to blow to bits and to torture to death as many innocent people as they can. You, however, wish to claim that these victims have been killed by the Americans. Innocents are being killed by one group, and you claim that they have been killed by another. Why?

(Incidentally, you have no clue whatsoever as to what I think about Cheney, the Republicans, Iraq or American foreign policy in general.)


Your arguments sound like a German Konzentrationslager-Nazi saying
that it wasn't the Nazis that killed all the Jews - it was the leadership
of the concentration camps who did it... :boggled:

It was a result of destabilizing Iraq - no matter what other third
parties had to do with it. The main point still is: "Destabilization".

What part of that don't you understand? Iraq wasn't a sponsor
of terrorism, so what's your opinion about the wise Cheney in
contrast to the dumb Cheney ten years later?:

6BEsZMvrq-I
Care to explain it to me?

[Par]

If the American government has somehow surreptitiously ordered the religious extremists in Iraq to go about their rampage of torture and murder, then I will concede immediately that you are correct. Do you have any evidence of such an affiliation taking place? Or did you merely wish to present a false analogy?

Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?

[danielk]

Your arguments sound like a German Konzentrationslager-Nazi saying that it wasn't the Nazis that killed all the Jews - it was the leadership of the concentration camps who did it... :boggled:
Oliver, for the love of the FSM, please tell me you aren't serious.

[Oliver]

If the American government has somehow surreptitiously ordered the religious extremists in Iraq to go about their rampage of torture and murder, then I will concede immediately that you are correct. Do you have any evidence of such an affiliation taking place? Or did you merely wish to present a false analogy?

Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?


Quite frankly: I don't see any Islamic threat for the US. You might
argue that 9/11 happened but my point is that this was a retaliation
for US-Foreign policies. And if you would study Osama Bin Ladens
own words, you would know this.

And yes, I acknowledge that there is a lot of hate towards America,
and the reasons for that are the Israel-Support and being egocentric
about the world and themselves.

The most dangerous threat to the world to me are American foreign
policies. And I fully understand that you're an American citizen, not
the American Government.

I strongly distinguish between America and American Government.
You might argue that Islam is more "terroristic" than Christianity,
but from what I see -taking history into account- it's religion itself
that is the problem here. Do you disagree - and why?

[Stout]

Out of curiosity...Where did that figure of 500 000 come from ?

I'm aware of the Lancet study that quotes 655 000 also I'm looking at another British site called Iraq Body Count, and they give a range of up to 85 000.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

[Oliver]

Oliver, for the love of the FSM, please tell me you aren't serious.


Bezüglich wessen Argument?

[Concerning which argument]

[Oliver]

Out of curiosity...Where did that figure of 500 000 come from ?

I'm aware of the Lancet study that quotes 655 000 also I'm looking at another British site called Iraq Body Count, and they give a range of up to 85 000.

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/


Iraqbodycount states that most deaths aren't reported in official
data. But despite that - I don't care about 100,000 or 999,999
innocent deaths - the keypoint is "innocent deaths". And surprise,
surprise - Iraq nor Iran had nothing to do with the 3,000 deaths
on 9/11. So the American Government lied to the rest of the world,
just like they did about Iran.

Most 9/11 Hijackers were Saudi citizens, but guess what: "The
Saudis are our friends, let's not make accusations about friends". :boggled:

[Par]

Quite frankly: I don't see any Islamic threat for the US. You might
argue that 9/11 happened but my point is that this was a retaliation
for US-Foreign policies. And if you would study Osama Bin Ladens
own words, you would know this.

And yes, I acknowledge that there is a lot of hate towards America,
and the reasons for that are the Israel-Support and being egocentric
about the world and themselves.

The most dangerous threat to the world to me are American foreign
policies. And I fully understand that you're an American citizen, not
the American Government.

I strongly distinguish between America and American Government.
You might argue that Islam is more "terroristic" than Christianity,
but from what I see -taking history into account- it's religion itself
that is the problem here. Do you disagree - and why?


None of this has any bearing on the point at issue.

Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?

(Incidentally, I am not an American citizen. It says as much under my name.)

[Par]

Iraqbodycount states that most deaths aren't reported in official data. But despite that - I don't care about 100,000 or 999,999 innocent deaths - the keypoint is "innocent deaths".


I agree. While I’m highly sceptical about the figure you gave, it is essentially irrelevant to this particular issue.

[Stout]

Ok, so you're not fussed about the accuracy of the numbers then. But what does 911 have to do with Iraq ? Invading Afghanistan was all about "revenge" for 911. Iraq was all about the hunt for WMDs and is all about oil.

[D'rok]

None of this has any bearing on the point at issue.

Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?

I completely agree with the point you are trying to make to Oliver. Except...

Are you implying the inverse? - i.e, that the murderous Islamists currently operating there have completely removed moral agency from America?

In other words, is the destabilization (invasion, occupation, etc) a completely morally discrete event from the results of the the destabilization (civil chaos, terrorism, etc)?

I don't think that position is any more tenable than Oliver's.

[Oliver]

None of this has any bearing on the point at issue.

Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?

(Incidentally, I am not an American citizen. It says as much under my name.)



What "murderous Islamists" are you referring to? The conflict
between Shia's and Sunni's is a very old one and Mr. VPotus
acknowledged this decades ago.

It was the invasion that sparkled the conflict we see today,
and again: Mr. VPotus acknowledged this decades ago.

You're happy being lied to?

[Par]

I don't think that position is any more tenable than Oliver's.


Me either! Yes, of course those responsible for the initial destabilisation must bear a kind of overall, second-order moral responsibility for the carnage that has followed.

[Oliver]

Ok, so you're not fussed about the accuracy of the numbers then. But what does 911 have to do with Iraq ? Invading Afghanistan was all about "revenge" for 911. Iraq was all about the hunt for WMDs and is all about oil.


We still don't know the truth about the reasons to go into
Iraq. It could be because Oil, maybe because Saddam selling
oil in Euros, maybe because Israel, maybe because the US-
empire in the Middle-East - we don't know for sure.

Now even if this kind of secrecy isn't in any way democratic
to me, we probably can agree that the WMD-**** was just
that: Crap.

The Government hasted to get into Iraq without being
skeptical concerning the lousy evidence. And troublesome
enough - the Americans and the rest of the world blindy
followed them of an imaginary Islamistic Thread.

From what I can tell over here - we don't see this
threat anymore.

[Par]

What "murderous Islamists" are you referring to? The conflict
between Shia's and Sunni's is a very old one and Mr. VPotus
acknowledged this decades ago.

It was the invasion that sparkled the conflict we see today,
and again: Mr. VPotus acknowledged this decades ago.

You're happy being lied to?


As I have already explained, I am referring to the Ba’thists, al-Qaeda jihadis, members of sectarian death squads et al. who freely choose to annihilate marketplaces full of innocent men, women children or to sink power drills into the knee-caps of Iraqi interpreters, etc.

Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?

[Oliver]

As I have already explained, I am referring to the Ba’thists, al-Qaeda jihadis, members of sectarian death squads et al. who freely choose to annihilate marketplaces full of innocent men, women children or to sink power drills into the knee-caps of Iraqi interpreters, etc.

Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?


I don't get your point here. Suicide Bombers did exist before 9/11 and
therefore before America went into "Islamists mode". Of course there
are people hating America and Israel - and I can understand their
arguments, even if I disagree with their solutions.

But in any case - Islamists aren't a problem to America - they literally
live some thousand miles away and the Visa-Problem is solved already.
The solution to reduce the Jihadist's problem is diplomacy - not
bombing them.

So let me ask - what would you think if the Iranians would behave
like this (ETA: installing Dictators in your country and sponsor terrorism
against your government):

guAcGOTaIts
What would you think?

[Stout]

We may never know the truth about Iraq. Alan Greenspan came out saying it's all about oil and I've always had a sneaking suspicion that the WMD issue was legit at one point in time but Saddam either used them all up or sold them to his neighbours before the invasion.

The WMD excuse was a good line though, I bought it and my inner cynic says that maybe, just maybe Bush believed in Iraqi WMDs because he was holding the receipts for the raw materials to make them in his hand when he stated that reason.

But back on topic. Saddam seemed to be doing a pretty good job of keeping a lid on the sectarian violence, and as per the video upthread, I really find it hard to believe that these "experts" didn't expect Iraq to try and slice itself up based on religious and ethnic lines after Saddam had been deposed.

So, yes, i see the US as being responsible for the increase in "civilian" violence.

Why is the accuracy of the numbers unimportant ?

[Par]

I don't get your point here. Suicide Bombers did exist before 9/11 and
therefore before America went into "Islamists mode". Of course there
are people hating America and Israel - and I can understand their
arguments, even if I disagree with their solutions.

But in any case - Islamists aren't a problem to America - they literally
live some thousand miles away and the Visa-Problem is solved already.
The solution to reduce the Jihadist's problem is diplomacy - not
bombing them.

So let me ask - what would you think if the Iranians would behave
like this (ETA: installing Dictators in your country and sponsor terrorism
against your government):

guAcGOTaIts
What would you think?


Could you please just answer the question?

When a Ba’thist, an al-Qaeda jihadi or a member of a sectarian death squad freely chooses to annihilate a marketplace full of innocent men, women children or to sink a power drill into the knee-cap of an Iraqi interpreter, why do you chalk that up as an American war crime? Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?

[Oliver]

We may never know the truth about Iraq. Alan Greenspan came out saying it's all about oil and I've always had a sneaking suspicion that the WMD issue was legit at one point in time but Saddam either used them all up or sold them to his neighbours before the invasion.

The WMD excuse was a good line though, I bought it and my inner cynic says that maybe, just maybe Bush believed in Iraqi WMDs because he was holding the receipts for the raw materials to make them in his hand when he stated that reason.

But back on topic. Saddam seemed to be doing a pretty good job of keeping a lid on the sectarian violence, and as per the video upthread, I really find it hard to believe that these "experts" didn't expect Iraq to try and slice itself up based on religious and ethnic lines after Saddam had been deposed.

So, yes, i see the US as being responsible for the increase in "civilian" violence.

Why is the accuracy of the numbers unimportant ?


Quite frankly - if you don't get the reasons for invading a country,
you certainly don't live in a democracy. In a democracy you would
learn about the facts and vote for the right thing. Concerning Iraq,
you had to trust your Government, no matter if they lied or told the
truth. That's called patriotism based on made-up stuff...

[D'rok]

I don't get your point here.

Does this help?

Hypothetical: A member of Al Qaeda in Iraq straps a bomb to himself, goes to a market in Baghdad, detonates it, and kills dozens of men, women and children. Who is morally responsible:

a) The suicide bomber
b) The Islamist group he belongs to
c) America

Please explain your answer.

[Oliver]

Could you please just answer the question?

When a Ba’thist, an al-Qaeda jihadi or a member of a sectarian death squad freely chooses to annihilate a marketplace full of innocent men, women children or to sink a power drill into the knee-cap of an Iraqi interpreter, why do you chalk that up as an American war crime? Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?


I already answered this. There were no Suicide bombers when
Saddam was in power. So why is it that this changed since the
Americans removed Saddam? ... (http://www.freepolyringtones.co.uk/True-Tones/TV%20&%20Film/TV%20Theme%20-%20Jeopardy.mp3) :rolleyes:

[Par]

I already answered this. There were no Suicide bombers when
Saddam was in power. So why is it that this changed since the
Americans removed Saddam? ... (http://www.freepolyringtones.co.uk/True-Tones/TV%20&%20Film/TV%20Theme%20-%20Jeopardy.mp3) :rolleyes:


I refer you to D'rok the Lacone's elucidatoin (one for which I am very grateful, but I would like, for now at least, to change “Who is morally responsible?” to simply “Who killed the victims?”)

[Oliver]

Does this help?

Hypothetical: A member of Al Qaeda in Iraq straps a bomb to himself, goes to a market in Baghdad, detonates it, and kills dozens of men, women and children. Who is morally responsible:

a) The suicide bomber
b) The Islamist group he belongs to
c) America

Please explain your answer.


The suicide bomber himself is responsible.
Secondly, the Islamist group he belonged to.

That's not the point I made.

If there were no suicide bombers in Iraq - and they
spread all around the country after Saddam was
toppled - what exactly was the reason for suicide
bombers to get an issue? Saddam - or toppling Saddam?

And if you answered this question: "Who exactly toppled Saddam?"
...exactly.

[Oliver]

I refer you to D'rok the Lacone's elucidatoin (one for which I am very grateful, but I would like to change “Who is morally responsible?” to simply “Who killed the victims?”)


Since I gave you my opinion. What do you think about
your own VPotus change of mind? And what does this
tell you about your Potus and the rest of the NeoCons?

[Par]

The suicide bomber himself is responsible.
Secondly, the Islamist group he belonged to.


Right. So, when you claimed that those killed in Iraq had been murdered by America, that was inaccurate. Fine. I’m very glad we’ve got there.

[Par]

If there were no suicide bombers in Iraq - and they
spread all around the country after Saddam was
toppled - what exactly was the reason for suicide
bombers to get an issue? Saddam - or toppling Saddam?


Well, both would bear some responsibility for that.

[D'rok]

Since I gave you my opinion. What do you think about
your own VPotus change of mind? And what does this
tell you about your Potus and the rest of the NeoCons?

Geography lesson: Ottawa is the capital of Canada. I don't have a VPotus, Cheney or otherwise.

I think Cheney is a lying son of a bitch who, along with that smirking chimp of a president, should be impeached forthwith. But, like yours, my opinion doesn't count.

Nonetheless, Cheney didn't murder anybody in Iraq. You are conflating a whole bunch of different issues.

ETA: Oops. I replied to a reply to Par. My bad.

[Par]

Since I gave you my opinion. What do you think about
your own VPotus change of mind? And what does this
tell you about your Potus and the rest of the NeoCons?


Perhaps some of the reason that it took so long for you to finally address the point at issue is that you evidently do not actually read my posts. I have already told you: I am not an American citizen. It says as much under my name.

[Oliver]

Well, both would bear some responsibility for that.


That's not correct. If Cheney knew that it was destabilize
a country to invade them - it shows that todays Government
was aware of the complications.

...therefore: If I know that invading a country will probably
cause suicide terrorists - I cannot complain about that afterwards.

Therefore the people who went into Iraq are responsible knowing
that this would happen.

And yes, Cheney is a major part of American foreign policies,
no matter if you agree or disagree with him.

[Oliver]

Perhaps some of the reason that it took so long for you to finally address the point at issue is that you evidently do not actually read my posts. I have already told you: I am not an American citizen. It says as much under my name.


I didn't read your Member-Details - so I apologize for assuming
you're an American Citizen... :boxedin:

[Par]

That's not correct. If Cheney knew that it was destabilize
a country to invade them - it shows that todays Government
was aware of the complications.

...therefore: If I know that invading a country will probably
cause suicide terrorists - I cannot complain about that afterwards.

Therefore the people who went into Iraq are responsible knowing
that this would happen.

And yes, Cheney is a major part of American foreign policies,
no matter if you agree or disagree with him.


So, I point out that I agree that Cheney et al. bear some responsibility for the carnage in Iraq. You then tell me I’m not correct and go on to present an argument which shows that Cheney et al. bear some responsibility for the carnage in Iraq.

[Stout]

It's an interesting point about American involvement in Iraq creating the environment for suicide bombers to function in. I wonder why they didn't happen under Saddam? Maybe his ruling with an iron fist would have had them rounded up and tortured in prison. Maybe he would go after the families of suicide bombers who worked in Iraq and suggested that if martyrdom is their thing, Israel is a better target.

That's why I'm on about the numbers. What happens if we compare the numbers of "innocents" killed under Saddam's regime, to the numbers killed under the occupation, how far apart might the two totals be?

[Oliver]

So, I point out that I agree that Cheney et al. bear some responsibility for the carnage in Iraq. You then tell me I’m not correct and go on to present an argument which shows that Cheney et al. bear some responsibility for the carnage in Iraq.


Basically Cheney wasn't my point - he just proves the point I
raised. The point is that neither Iraq nor Iran is a threat to
America itself - while I agree that Israel making complaints
about those countries makes sense.

So what are you opposed to? Jihadists attacking America?
That's a nice fairytale to me - but the facts doesn't support
this nice tale...

[Par]

Basically Cheney wasn't my point - he just proves the point I
raised. The point is that neither Iraq nor Iran is a threat to
America itself - while I agree that Israel making complaints
about those countries makes sense.


I haven’t said anything about this. Nor was it the point of this thread.

[Par]

So what are you opposed to? Jihadists attacking America? That's a nice fairytale to me - but the facts doesn't support
this nice tale...


In that case, I must have imagined that these two tall buildings used to stand in downtown Manhattan. Further, I suppose it could be considered somewhat telling that you consider the supposedly fantastical notion of jihadi attacks on America “nice”. In any event, that wasn’t the purpose of this thread either.

[Oliver]

I haven’t said anything about this. Nor was it the point of this thread.


You started off by complaining about islamic suicide-bombers, didn't you?
So how is this a threat to you at all?

[Par]

You started off by complaining about islamic suicide-bombers, didn't you?


The subject has been explained to you numerous times now. I’m not about to do so again. I suggest you cast your eye back to D'rok the Lacone’s penultimate post. You seemed to grasp the concept at the time, but it appears to have slipped away from you again.

Does this help?

Hypothetical: A member of Al Qaeda in Iraq straps a bomb to himself, goes to a market in Baghdad, detonates it, and kills dozens of men, women and children. Who is morally responsible:

a) The suicide bomber
b) The Islamist group he belongs to
c) America

Please explain your answer.
The suicide bomber himself is responsible.
Secondly, the Islamist group he belonged to.
Right. So, when you claimed that those killed in Iraq had been murdered by America, that was inaccurate. Fine. I’m very glad we’ve got there.


There. Subject (finally) addressed. Thread finished.

[Par]

So how is this a threat to you at all?


I have never once mentioned “threats” of any kind.

[Oliver]

The subject has been explained to you numerous times now. I’m not about to do so again. I suggest you cast your eye back to D'rok the Lacone’s penultimate post. You seemed to grasp the concept at the time, but it appears to have slipped away from you again.


My problem is that I still don't get you point how 50 or even
100 innocent people being killed in a suicide attack justifies
the destabilization of a whole country causing hundred-thousands
of deaths.

You may have lost your common sense here. The destabilization
was clear to many US and non-US Strategists - and therefore
the amount of killed innocent people isn't a surprise at all.

So what the **** is your point here? That America is a bunch
of Angels who didn't knew that this probably will happen???

Are you friggin kidding me?

The US does bare responsibility. More than you are willing to
accept. But this is okay for me as long you would sacrifice
your own family for BS-reasons as well.

[Par]

My problem is that I still don't get you point how 50 or even
100 innocent people being killed in a suicide attack justifies
the destabilization of a whole country causing hundred-thousands
of deaths.


I have never once made any such claim.

[gumboot]

What "murderous Islamists" are you referring to? The conflict
between Shia's and Sunni's is a very old one and Mr. VPotus
acknowledged this decades ago.

It was the invasion that sparkled the conflict we see today,
and again: Mr. VPotus acknowledged this decades ago.


Wow.

A recent invasion resulted in a "very old" conflict... and we knew this invasion caused this "very old conflict" decades ago?

:eye-poppi

-Gumboot

[Oliver]

Wow.

A recent invasion resulted in a "very old" conflict... and we knew this invasion caused this "very old conflict" decades ago?

:eye-poppi

-Gumboot


No, the conflict itself is an old one. To cause a power-vacuum
that will result in blind violence is another topic. And I accuse
the US to deliberately taking this into account (See Cheney
1994). So it is hypocrisy to whine about something that was
obvious ten years ago.

Your explanation for this is ... ? :
6BEsZMvrq-I

[Par]

So, it’s not just me. You just can’t understand anything anybody posts.

[Oliver]

So, it’s not just me. You just can’t understand anything anybody posts.


I fully understand - but in contrast to many other people
in here, I'm actually able to complain about my countries
and governments history while others in here cannot accept
that the US isn't innocent concerning ALL the things that
happen to them - including terrorism.

Blame others instead ...

[danielk]

OK, I have no time for this any longer. Oliver, welcome to ignore. Be proud, you're the only one on the list.

[Oliver]

OK, I have no time for this any longer. Oliver, welcome to ignore. Be proud, you're the only one on the list.


You're welcome for dodging topics. :)

[D'rok]

This:

The suicide bomber himself is responsible.
Secondly, the Islamist group he belonged to.

Just re-enforces this:

So, how do you square the “Killing 500,000 for flawed intelligence or imaginary threats is what I call murder” and the “I don’t”?

The answer to the question as to how you square those mutually contradictory assertions is that you don't/can't.

Which was the original point of the thread. Will you simply admit that your position is incoherent?

[Oliver]

This:

Just re-enforces this:

The answer to the question as to how you square those mutually contradictory assertions is that you don't/can't.

Which was the original point of the thread. Will you simply admit that your position is incoherent?


I will if you can confirm that you followed the discussion which
started in here:

So just who or whaat is Killtown? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100639) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100639) (http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100639) 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100639&page=2))
achtung circus (Yesterday)

[Par]

So, it’s not just me. You just can’t understand anything anybody posts.
I fully understand - but in contrast to many other people
in here, I'm actually able to complain about my countries
and governments history while others in here cannot accept
that the US isn't innocent concerning ALL the things that
happen to them - including terrorism.


There you go again! You must have simply not read or understood the two posts in this thread where I clearly state that I believe that America shares the responsibility for the situation in Iraq.

[Par]

I will if you can confirm that you followed the discussion which
started in here:

So just who or whaat is Killtown? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100639) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100639) (http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100639) 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100639&page=2))
achtung circus (Yesterday)


There’s scarce need to. While this thread stems from the one you link to, it only concerns and very simple issue. All one needs to know is summarised in my first post in this thread.

[D'rok]

I will if you can confirm that you followed the discussion which
started in here:

So just who or whaat is Killtown? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100639) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/multipage.gif 1 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100639) 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100639&page=2))
achtung circus (Yesterday)

Non sequitur. That's the thread where you made the post implying America is guilty of murdering 500,000 Iraqis. Par called you out on it and here we are.

[Oliver]

There you go again! You must have simply not read or understood the two posts in this thread where I clearly state that I believe that America shares the responsibility for the situation in Iraq.


I understand this - but I fail to see your point since I already
said that Suicide Bombers aren't a solution - nor a threat to
any nation.

[Elizabeth I]

I didn't read your Member-Details - so I apologize for assuming
you're an American Citizen... :boxedin:

Oliver automatically assumes that anyone who doesn't agree with his stance that the United States is at the bottom of all the misery in the world today and all the misery to come, including everything from the spread of AIDS to the rise in popularity of teacup poodles, is an American.

[WildCat]

I understand this - but I fail to see your point since I already
said that Suicide Bombers aren't a solution - nor a threat to
any nation.
Well then, Iraq is all hunky-dory. Just suicide bombers, therefore no threats to it.

[brumsen]

Could you please just answer the question?

When a Ba’thist, an al-Qaeda jihadi or a member of a sectarian death squad freely chooses to annihilate a marketplace full of innocent men, women children or to sink a power drill into the knee-cap of an Iraqi interpreter, why do you chalk that up as an American war crime? Indeed, Iraq was destabilised by the American-led invasion. However, are you able to explain the way in which this completely removed moral agency from the murderous Islamists currently operating there?
OK, I will have a try, though of course I can't be sure to speak for Oliver entirely.

For such a murder to count as a (result of) an American war-crime, it is not needed that the moral agency be completely removed from said islamists. You're simply posing a false dilemma.
Said islamist would be responsible, AND the American government also. It decided to invade a country in the full knowledge that destabilisation would result and that the way the military operation was set up would not allow them to deal with such destabilisation; that is a war-crime.
Ergo, the innocent civilian deaths are the result both of the Islamist's actions and the US government actions, and both bear responsibility.

However.... in order to substantiate that position it does seem to me that Stout's point about the exact body count needs to be adressed: "What happens if we compare the numbers of "innocents" killed under Saddam's regime, to the numbers killed under the occupation, how far apart might the two totals be?"
Anybody an idea about how to proceed on that one?

BTW, Par, how does your geographic location show that you are not an American citizen?:confused: (Have the troops in Iraq become Iraqis by going there?)

[Matteo Martini]

So, how do you square the “Killing 500,000 for flawed intelligence or imaginary threats is what I call murder” and the “I don’t”?

As while the American soldiers did not directly kill civilians (*), the American military intervention in Iraq has generated ( some of ) the conditions for the 500000 deaths to happen

(*) civilians victims in Iraq have, however, directly being killed by American forces during bombings, and so on..

[Matteo Martini]

For such a murder to count as a (result of) an American war-crime, it is not needed that the moral agency be completely removed from said islamists. You're simply posing a false dilemma.
Said islamist would be responsible, AND the American government also. It decided to invade a country in the full knowledge that destabilisation would result and that the way the military operation was set up would not allow them to deal with such destabilisation; that is a war-crime.
Ergo, the innocent civilian deaths are the result both of the Islamist's actions and the US government actions, and both bear responsibility.


I am not speaking for Oliver and Brumsen, but that is my position too.

[KoihimeNakamura]

OK, I will have a try, though of course I can't be sure to speak for Oliver entirely.

For such a murder to count as a (result of) an American war-crime, it is not needed that the moral agency be completely removed from said islamists. You're simply posing a false dilemma.

No. It is Oliver's position that it's solely an American War CrimE

Said islamist would be responsible, AND the American government also. It decided to invade a country in the full knowledge that destabilisation would result and that the way the military operation was set up would not allow them to deal with such destabilisation; that is a war-crime.

No it didn't and no it's not. Wrong and wrong.While they did not do adequete planning, that is at best a crime of being stupid.Are you going to have being stupid a crime now?

Ergo, the innocent civilian deaths are the result both of the Islamist's actions and the US government actions, and both bear responsibility.

Logical, but quite unsound. You could say the US government didn't adquetly protect them.. but.. the fact they're trying is sorta a monkey wrench in your argument.

While the US government may be ultimately responsible and morally so.. it is not legally so. And it falls far short of the definition of a war crime.

[brumsen]

No. It is Oliver's position that it's solely an American War CrimE
The suicide bomber himself is responsible.
Secondly, the Islamist group he belonged to.


:confused:

No it didn't and no it's not. Wrong and wrong.While they did not do adequete planning, that is at best a crime of being stupid.Are you going to have being stupid a crime now?

There is according to international law a duty (http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/news-iraq5Summary.html) of the occupying force to protect the civilian population. True, I am not quite sure if that makes not properly fulfilling that duty technically a war crime. And yes, there was awareness that the invading force was not sufficient to guarantee stability.

You could say the US government didn't adquetly protect them.. but.. the fact they're trying is sorta a monkey wrench in your argument.
No. It would have to be trying adequately. Lack of success does not necessarily mean the duty is not being fulfilled, but just trying does not necessarily mean it is.

[Par]

For such a murder to count as a (result of) an American war-crime, it is not needed that the moral agency be completely removed from said islamists.


Quite possibly. But remember, the idea that the murders were a causal result of American destabilisation was not Oliver’s original claim. He stated that those killed in Iraq had been murdered by America.

[Par]

Said islamist would be responsible, AND the American government also. It decided to invade a country in the full knowledge that destabilisation would result and that the way the military operation was set up would not allow them to deal with such destabilisation; that is a war-crime. Ergo, the innocent civilian deaths are the result both of the Islamist's actions and the US government actions, and both bear responsibility.
As while the American soldiers did not directly kill civilians (*), the American military intervention in Iraq has generated ( some of ) the conditions for the 500000 deaths to happen


I refer you both to these two posts:

[O]f course those responsible for the initial destabilisation must bear a kind of overall, second-order moral responsibility for the carnage that has followed.
...what exactly was the reason for suicide bombers to get an issue? Saddam - or toppling Saddam?Well, both would bear some responsibility for that.

[Par]

However.... in order to substantiate that position it does seem to me that Stout's point about the exact body count needs to be adressed: "What happens if we compare the numbers of "innocents" killed under Saddam's regime, to the numbers killed under the occupation, how far apart might the two totals be?"


The number of innocents killed by the Allied war on Nazism doubtless exceeds – by orders of magnitude – the number killed by al-Qaeda. It would seem decidedly dubious, however, to start basing moral conclusions on that disparity.

[Par]

Par, how does your geographic location show that you are not an American citizen?


You’re right. It was perfectly sensible of Oliver to see “Valencia, Spain” and assume that I am an American citizen (even after I told him twice that I am not).

[brumsen]

But remember, the idea that the murders were a causal result of American destabilisation was not Oliver’s original claim. He stated that those killed in Iraq had been murdered by America.
Where, exactly?

I refer you both to these two posts:
Sure, I had seen that your position is not that different from mine. However, "second order, overall responsibility" is too vague to my taste.
Anyway, as was clear from my post, I took issue with the false dilemma that you posed.

The number of innocents killed by the Allied war on Nazism doubtless exceeds – by orders of magnitude – the number killed by al-Qaeda. It would seem decidedly dubious, however, to start basing moral conclusions on that disparity.
You are missing the point by miles. The point is to compare the actual situation in Iraq with the situation that would have existed now in the hypothetical case that there had been no US invasion. This says something about whether the net result of the invasion is positive, and has a bearing on the judgement whether US troops have adequately protected civilians.
Other wars have nothing to do with this.

You’re right. It was perfectly sensible of Oliver to see “Valencia, Spain” and assume that I am an American citizen (even after I told him twice that I am not).
It wasn't, and I didn't say that it was. I wasn't talking about Olivers assumption. I was taking issue with what you said:
...that you evidently do not actually read my posts. I have already told you: I am not an American citizen. It says as much under my name.
It does not. It only says where you are located. So I did not see why you accused Oliver of not reading your posts (even if, since, he has apologised for making the assumption about your citizenship)

[Par]

Where, exactly?


Here:

Killing 500,000 for flawed intelligence or imaginary threats is what I call murder.

[Par]

I took issue with the false dilemma that you posed.


Remember, it would only have been a false dichotomy if Oliver had merely been claiming that the murders were a causal result of American destabilisation. However, as we have seen, he was initially claiming that those killed in Iraq had been murdered by America.

[KoihimeNakamura]

:confused:



There is according to international law a duty (http://www.crimesofwar.org/special/Iraq/news-iraq5Summary.html) of the occupying force to protect the civilian population. True, I am not quite sure if that makes not properly fulfilling that duty technically a war crime. And yes, there was awareness that the invading force was not sufficient to guarantee stability.
No, not by Bush. He outright ignored Powell, unfourntly. (Incidently, would you mind pointing out where that is in the treaties the US signed? Otherwise I'm afraid it's not something the US must recognize as a war crime.


No. It would have to be trying adequately. Lack of success does not necessarily mean the duty is not being fulfilled, but just trying does not necessarily mean it is.

I don't honestly think it's a war crime if you fail to meet someone's perceieved target.

[Par]

The point is to compare the actual situation in Iraq with the situation that would have existed now in the hypothetical case that there had been no US invasion. This says something about whether the net result of the invasion is positive...


Comparing the situations might tell us something about the whether the net result is positive up to that point. However, you were initially espousing comparing deaths in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict.

[Par]

Other wars have nothing to do with this.


It was an example of a heuristic device, known as an analogy.

[Par]

So I did not see why you accused Oliver of not reading your posts...


I accused him of not reading my posts because – amongst many other things – by that point I had already told him directly that I am not an American citizen.

[Segnosaur]

Quite frankly: I don't see any Islamic threat for the US. You might
argue that 9/11 happened but my point is that this was a retaliation
for US-Foreign policies. And if you would study Osama Bin Ladens
own words, you would know this.

So, you are basically absolving bin Laden of responsibility because he didn't like that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia (bin Laden's main complaint at the time of 9/11)? By your logic, I am justified in killing your family, burning down your house, and stealing your car, if I don't like something you've said in one of your posts and felt retaliation was in order.

A good moral anology would be the bombing of abortion clinics. I'm sure those people involved in the bombings felt their actions were justified (the same way bin Laden felt U.S. actions justified the 9/11 attacks). Fortunately, there are those of us in the civilized world who actually recognize that such attacks are generally immoral and should be condemmed.

The point is, the U.S. was in Saudi Arabia legally, and were not actually trying to invade, overthrow, or otherwise disrupt the country. Just because bin Laden thought the U.S. presence provided justification, does not mean that a more rational civilized person must accept their justification as a basis for actions.

[brumsen]

No, not by Bush. He outright ignored Powell, unfourntly. (Incidently, would you mind pointing out where that is in the treaties the US signed? Otherwise I'm afraid it's not something the US must recognize as a war crime.



I don't honestly think it's a war crime if you fail to meet someone's perceieved target.
Follow the link that I included.

[brumsen]

Comparing the situations might tell us something about the whether the net result is positive up to that point. However, you were initially espousing comparing deaths in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict.

Yes; situations in which a certain death toll had occurred.
Listen, are you actually trying to say something here?

[brumsen]

It was an example of a heuristic device, known as an analogy.

Sure. But there are of course good analogies and bad analogies.

[Par]

Yes; situations in which a certain death toll had occurred.


Obviously, the death toll is an element of a given situation. However, you were initially espousing comparing death tolls alone in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict. That, quite clearly, is what I took issue with.

[Par]

Sure. But there are of course good analogies and bad analogies.


You, if you’ll remember, attempted to dismiss the analogy by stating that “Other wars have nothing to do with this.” Dismissal on those grounds evidently misses the point of analogies entirely.

If you think the analogy is a poor one (in other words, if you think it fails to show that comparing death tolls alone is not a useful calculus on which to base moral conclusions), then by all means explain why.

[brumsen]

Obviously, the death toll is an element of a given situation. However, you were initially espousing comparing death tolls alone in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict. That, quite clearly, is what I took issue with.
Quite clearly? Well, glad we've got that clear now, anyway.

I endorsed Stout's idea that comparing death tolls would tell us something about whether the US army had adequately protected Iraqi civilians, yes.

How would you propose to make a judgement on that issue, then?

[Par]

Quite clearly? Well, glad we've got that clear now, anyway.


You espoused simply comparing death tolls. I then presented an analogy which showed that comparing death tolls would not be useful. That is why it is quite clear that comparing death tolls is what I took issue with.

[Par]

I endorsed Stout's idea that comparing death tolls would tell us something about whether the US army had adequately protected Iraqi civilians, yes.


No. You were espousing comparing death tolls in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict.


Said islamist would be responsible, AND the American government also. It decided to invade a country in the full knowledge that destabilisation would result and that the way the military operation was set up would not allow them to deal with such destabilisation; that is a war-crime. Ergo, the innocent civilian deaths are the result both of the Islamist's actions and the US government actions, and both bear responsibility.

However.... in order to substantiate that position it does seem to me that Stout's point about the exact body count needs to be adressed: "What happens if we compare the numbers of "innocents" killed under Saddam's regime, to the numbers killed under the occupation, how far apart might the two totals be?"

[brumsen]

If you think the analogy is a poor one (in other words, if you think it fails to show that comparing death tolls alone is not a useful calculus on which to base moral conclusions), then by all means explain why.

The number of innocents killed by the Allied war on Nazism doubtless exceeds – by orders of magnitude – the number killed by al-Qaeda. It would seem decidedly dubious, however, to start basing moral conclusions on that disparity.

Well - where do I start?!

You compare two conflicts, in different times, rather than the real and a hypothetical situation concerning one conflict.
How is comparing a real and a hypothetical situation analogous to comparing two different conflicts?

My comparison (or again, it was rather Stout's) was aimed to get some handle on whether the invasion force has been better or worse at protecting civilians, and therefore, whether it was a good thing or not that the invasion had taken place in this form.

How does your "analogy" aim at something similar? It seems simply designed to imply,
"here are two different situations, one on which the Good guys actions caused the deaths of X civilians, and in the other, Bad guys cause the deaths of far fewer than X civilians. So surely this shows that the number of civilians caused to die is not morally significant, since we stand by our judgment about who are the Good guys and the Bad guys."

In short: your analogy is bad because it makes a comparison between different conflicts. Or yet shorter: other wars have nothing to do with it.

[brumsen]

No. You were espousing comparing death tolls in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict.
Well, it's very nice of you to quote the relevant passage of my earlier post, but I would fail at expressing more clearly and succinctly what I did there; and yet you take issue with my formulation.
I'm at a loss to understand what you're trying to say, quite frankly.

ETA: OK, I'll try just once more, probably in vain.
I was proposing comparing death tolls, between the actual situation and the hypothetical situation in which no invasion had taken place, in order to substantiate the judgement that the US government bears responsibility for the innocent Iraqi civilian deaths.

[KoihimeNakamura]

OK. Thanks for clarifying that up

[Par]

My comparison (or again, it was rather Stout's) was aimed to get some handle on whether the invasion force has been better or worse at protecting civilians...


You never once mentioned an assessment of how well or badly the invasion force had protected civilians. Quite clearly, you were espousing comparing death tolls in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict – as a way of assigning moral blame.

...the innocent civilian deaths are the result both of the Islamist's actions and the US government actions, and both bear responsibility... in order to substantiate that position it does seem to me that... the exact body count needs to be adressed

[Par]

Well - where do I start?! You compare two conflicts, in different times... In short: your analogy is bad because it makes a comparison between different conflicts.


The analogy sought to show that comparing death tolls alone cannot result in useful information on which to base moral conclusions. If you wish to show that the analogy is a poor one, you need to show that it fails to do this. Simply highlighting the fact that the two conflicts occurred at different times and suchlike obviously does not meet this condition.

[Par]

In short: your analogy is bad because it makes a comparison between different conflicts. Or yet shorter: other wars have nothing to do with it.


So, any analogy that compares different conflicts is by definition invalid. I see. It seems that you wish to arbitrarily banish analogies from the argument altogether. I wonder why that might be.

[brumsen]

The analogy sought to show that comparing death tolls alone cannot result in useful information on which to base moral conclusions. If you wish to show that the analogy is a poor one, you need to show that it fails to do this. Simply highlighting the fact that the two conflicts occurred at different times and suchlike obviously does not meet this condition.
Neither does simply affirming your position make it any more true.

Until you actually engage with my argument, I'll just make the following remark:
Have you ever heard of utilitarian calculus? You know - where one compares alternative lines of action and attempts to establish which maximizes overall utility? What I did was like that; your analogy was not.

ETA:
So, any analogy that compares different conflicts is by definition invalid.
I did not argue that and you know it.

[Par]

OK, I'll try just once more, probably in vain...



I know full well what you are now claiming that you wish to use the death toll to asses.

[brumsen]

You never once mentioned an assessment of how well or badly the invasion force had protected civilians. Quite clearly, you were espousing comparing death tolls in order to learn something about the moral nature of the conflict – as a way of assigning moral blame.
In my first post in this thread, just before the paragraph where I propose making such a comparison, I said:
Said islamist would be responsible, AND the American government also. It decided to invade a country in the full knowledge that destabilisation would result and that the way the military operation was set up would not allow them to deal with such destabilisation; that is a war-crime.
I went on to say that to substantiate this position (to assess to what extent it holds water, if you like)- the position according to which the Americans are in part blamed for the civilian deaths - one needed to make said comparison.

Even if I didn't actually use the word assessment - what else is it that I proposed to do?

Come on, Par. Don't play thick.

[brumsen]

OK. Thanks for clarifying that up
You're being a bit cryptic...

Does that mean that you now accept that inadequate protection of civilians - such as in Iraq by US troops - counts as a war crime?

[KoihimeNakamura]

No. I'm agreeing that not providing any protection is. Whether or not the US is knowingly providing inadequate protection is another topic.

[brumsen]

No. I'm agreeing that not providing any protection is. Whether or not the US is knowingly providing inadequate protection is another topic.

Not providing any protection or not providing adequate protection?

Knowingly...
Well, I guess the situation is that the US have the resources to better protect the Iraqi civilian population, but that politically the circle of sending more troops cannot be squared.

Of course the better is the enemy of the good... but would you really want to argue that currently they receive adequate protection? And, that they have received adequate protection from the start of the invasion?

[KoihimeNakamura]

.... Considering all major forces are apparoaching overdeployment, they probably do not have adequete resources.

[brumsen]

.... Considering all major forces are apparoaching overdeployment, they probably do not have adequete resources.
The US started the war. Given the duty to protect Iraqi civilians, the resources needed to do so therefore have to be provided.

Surely you're not suggesting that the US are currently making the biggest war effort they are capable of.
But of course, the resources at the disposal of the US Army, that's a matter for politics...

[gumboot]

Actually given that the coalition forces are not an occupying power, and have not been since June 28, 2004, they are not responsible under the laws of war for providing protection to Iraqi civilians. That is the responsibility of the Iraqi government.

-Gumboot

[brumsen]

Actually given that the coalition forces are not an occupying power, and have not been since June 28, 2004, they are not responsible under the laws of war for providing protection to Iraqi civilians. That is the responsibility of the Iraqi government.

-Gumboot
I am pretty sure that formally you are right, so I stand corrected.

But they're still there, and I think this does not change all that much to the assessment on whether they're morally responsible.

[gumboot]

But they're still there, and I think this does not change all that much to the assessment on whether they're morally responsible.


And the world, by allowing Saddam to stay in power is morally responsible? Or the UN, by slapping sanctions on Iraq, is responsible?

Sorry. I'm a big fan of personal responsibility. I couldn't care less what traumatic childhood or convoluted moral position the suicide bomber uses to justify his actions, he, and he alone is responsible for the lives of those he kills.

Millions of Iraqis, despite having their lives turned upside down by the invasion and subsequent civil war have chosen not to murder their fellow citizens.

-Gumboot

[brumsen]

Sorry. I'm a big fan of personal responsibility. I couldn't care less what traumatic childhood or convoluted moral position the suicide bomber uses to justify his actions, he, and he alone is responsible for the lives of those he kills.
He is, but not he alone.

And the world, by allowing Saddam to stay in power is morally responsible? Or the UN, by slapping sanctions on Iraq, is responsible?
Yes. To various degrees.

[Par]

[Y]our analogy is bad because it makes a comparison between different conflicts.
So, any analogy that compares different conflicts is by definition invalid.
I did not argue that and you know it.


Right. I see.

[brumsen]

No analogy is by definition invalid. But whether it is or not depends on what point the analogy has to serve to make.
In this case, given the point I was making, a comparison between two different conflicts would not do since I was making a utilitarian-type analysis of this conflict.

I hope you do see it now, yes. Otherwise, I'll be off to threads where more constructive discussion is possible.

[Par]

No analogy is by definition invalid. But whether it is or not depends on what point the analogy has to serve to make.


The analogy sought to show that comparing death tolls alone cannot result in useful information on which to base moral conclusions. If you think it unfit for that purpose, then by all means explain why.

[Par]

So, to cut a long story short, and so we don’t lose sight of the subject of the thread:

Oliver initially claimed that those killed in Iraq have been murdered by America – a claim with a corollary either of denying the straightforward facts about who has killed who, or of removing moral agency entirely from the murderous Islamists operating there. As we have seen, however, that claim was both inaccurate and morally contemptible.

[brumsen]

The analogy sought to show that comparing death tolls alone cannot result in useful information on which to base moral conclusions. If you think it unfit for that purpose, then by all means explain why.
I have, ad nauseam, but nonetheless I shall add this:
Comparing death tolls alone between two very different situations (conflicts) will indeed not necessarily (I won't say: cannot) result in useful information.
However, if a sufficient number of other factors is the same - as in the comparison between a situation and the hypothetical situation which would have resulted if actors had made different choices - then it does result in useful information, even if of course it may be argued that such information is not sufficient to base moral conclusions on. (I am still waiting for your argument to this effect.)

[Oliver]

So, to cut a long story short, and so we don’t lose sight of the subject of the thread:

Oliver initially claimed that those killed in Iraq have been murdered by America – a claim with a corollary either of denying the straightforward facts about who has killed who, or of removing moral agency entirely from the murderous Islamists operating there. As we have seen, however, that claim was both inaccurate and morally contemptible.


Nope, I never said that all victims in Iraq were slaughtered by
the Americans. I said that those victims are a direct result of
destabilization as a result of the Invasion and destroying
public order.

Nevertheless: Slaughtering took place as well:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fallujah+massacre&btnG=Search

And I accuse the current Government on taking this into account
without giving a X about casualties, giving a X about telling the
true reasons for the Invasion, therefore giving a X about the "stupid
American Public" - and finally: giving a X about "Freedom and Justice
for Iraq". *lol* That last reason was actually a funny sarcastic one.

Blood for Oil:
2VVVToUZ7Io

[brumsen]

Well, Oliver, you actually did say that in one post. A somewhat sloppy formulation which you later explained and elaborated on, expressing better what you meant.
But, you see, the problem is that Par, in a discussion, wants to keep coming back to the things one has said to start with and is not really interested in these refinements. I find that personally a very unconstructive way of discussing.

[Oliver]

Well, Oliver, you actually did say that in one post. A somewhat sloppy formulation which you later explained and elaborated on, expressing better what you meant.
But, you see, the problem is that Par, in a discussion, wants to keep coming back to the things one has said to start with and is not really interested in these refinements. I find that personally a very unconstructive way of discussing.


And I agree - but I don't have that much time right
now and did discuss those Issues back and forth a
thousand times in here already:

http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/firstnew.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=87498) Time to kick Iran (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87498)
So what's this War about anyway? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83042)
Saudi insurgents in Iraq (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95399) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=95399)
Covert Operations (Black-Ops) (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87813) http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/misc/new_window.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87813)
Forget it, there is no Terror threat. Period (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83712)
Poll: Which part of the world is the most violent one? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83242)

[Par]

Well, Oliver, you actually did say that in one post. A somewhat sloppy formulation which you later explained and elaborated on, expressing better what you meant. But, you see, the problem is that Par, in a discussion, wants to keep coming back to the things one has said to start with and is not really interested in these refinements. I find that personally a very unconstructive way of discussing.


You seem to be suggesting that I am being quite unreasonable for not forgetting about Oliver’s initial claim and moving on. However, as you may have noticed, Oliver is still denying that he even made the claim. Given that, it’s difficult to see the issue as resolved.

[brumsen]

You seem to be suggesting that I am being quite unreasonable for not forgetting about Oliver’s initial claim and moving on. However, as you may have noticed, Oliver is still denying that he even made the claim. Given that, it’s difficult to see the issue as resolved.
I wouldn't say that Oliver deserves a beauty prize. But quite frankly it escapes me why you would pursue him for a claim that he denies having made (which I read as: which he denies having meant to make).
I mean, whaddayawant. That he retracts a claim that he has already said he did not want to make?

And how about you admitting that I did not reject your analogy on an ad-hoc basis?

[Par]

I mean, whaddayawant. That he retracts a claim that he has already said he did not want to make?


He has not said that it is a claim that he didn’t want to make. (That is merely a position you seem to have arbitrarily attributed to him.)

[brumsen]

He has not said that it is a claim that he didn’t want to make. (That is merely a position you seem to have arbitrarily attributed to him.)

Nope, I never said that all victims in Iraq were slaughtered by
the Americans. I said that those victims are a direct result of
destabilization as a result of the Invasion and destroying
public order.

Yeah, well, he has said he hasn't said it (which is patently untrue), therefore the next available interpretation is that he did not mean to say it. Duh.

[Beerina]

Oliver, for the love of the FSM, please tell me you aren't serious.

I think even the Dixie Chicks would concede Oliver has gone off into the weeds at this point...

[Beerina]

I think even the Dixie Chicks would concede Oliver has gone off into the weeds at this point...

It's Ok to not be stubborn, Oliver. It's Ok to admit you were wrong. It's Ok to rephrase your point.


How about this? I submit what you mean is that those Iraqis would not be dead but for flawed intelligence that was possibly knowingly used well out of the justification level of its reliability.

But I further submit the terrorists rely on your attitude to do their dirty work. As perverse as it may sound, they, like Gandhi, rely on the basic decency of the West to force withdrawal. They want the West to withdraw because the West feels the West is the cause of the casualties.

It's Ok to believe the US should withdraw for that reason, but please acknowledge you're doing exactly what the terrorists want. And you will be doing exactly what? Leaving people alive, but in a viscious dictatorship.

If I were Iraqi and someone said to me, "We can remove Saddam from power, but other thugs will try to take over, and you'll take a 1/100 chance of being killed", I might say, "Go for it".

I would loathe someone in the West who didn't want to do it because, patting me on the head, they didn't think it worth it to risk my life.

[Oliver]

It's Ok to not be stubborn, Oliver. It's Ok to admit you were wrong. It's Ok to rephrase your point.


How about this? I submit what you mean is that those Iraqis would not be dead but for flawed intelligence that was possibly knowingly used well out of the justification level of its reliability.

But I further submit the terrorists rely on your attitude to do their dirty work. As perverse as it may sound, they, like Gandhi, rely on the basic decency of the West to force withdrawal. They want the West to withdraw because the West feels the West is the cause of the casualties.

It's Ok to believe the US should withdraw for that reason, but please acknowledge you're doing exactly what the terrorists want. And you will be doing exactly what? Leaving people alive, but in a viscious dictatorship.

If I were Iraqi and someone said to me, "We can remove Saddam from power, but other thugs will try to take over, and you'll take a 1/100 chance of being killed", I might say, "Go for it".

I would loathe someone in the West who didn't want to do it because, patting me on the head, they didn't think it worth it to risk my life.


I don't believe in Terrorists - so what are you talking about?
You still buy the propaganda?

And yes, there are a handful Terrorists - the War on Terror
on the other Hand is a hoax.

Oliver, Germany (population: 82,314,900 / Muslims: 3,300,000)

[brumsen]

But I further submit the terrorists rely on your attitude to do their dirty work. As perverse as it may sound, they, like Gandhi, rely on the basic decency of the West to force withdrawal. They want the West to withdraw because the West feels the West is the cause of the casualties.

It's Ok to believe the US should withdraw for that reason, but please acknowledge you're doing exactly what the terrorists want. And you will be doing exactly what? Leaving people alive, but in a viscious dictatorship.

A dictatorship which, by the way, in the earlier days after the Iranian revolution was firmly supported by the US.

History has shown time and again that hardly any good comes from meddling with the internal affairs of a country. 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?

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.

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)

[Par]

...if a sufficient number of other factors is the same - as in the comparison between a situation and the hypothetical situation which would have resulted if actors had made different choices - then it does result in useful information...


Comparing death tolls alone can never result in useful information on which to base moral conclusions. You will always need to assess other factors. (Most notably, factors such as how many innocent lives were saved by those same actions, etc.) Once you start evaluating whether or not a “sufficient number of other factors is the same”, then you’re no longer making comparisons of death toll alone. The analogy shows that when death tolls alone are compared, counterintuitive – and indeed counter-rational – conclusions result. Similarly, a comparison of death tolls alone between the real-world post-invasion Iraq and a hypothetical contemporary Saddam-ruled Iraq would be equally useless.

[Par]

Yeah, well, he has said he hasn't said it (which is patently untrue), therefore the next available interpretation is that he did not mean to say it. Duh.


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.

[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. :rolleyes:

[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... :D

[Matteo Martini]

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

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.

[brumsen]

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..
you really think so? I doubt it very much. It's nice to see that you think that from now on (after Iran anyways) it can only get better, not worse... but I do not share that optimism.

That the economic power is shifting to other parts of the world will mean that America will find it harder and harder to defend its strategic interests. But it's not going to give up trying.

[brumsen]

...combining self-interest with missionary zeal rarely goes over well with the recipients. I'd consider this to be basic common sense psychology
Well said. Sounds like the point I was trying to get across, using many many more words.

[brumsen]

If he wins, I will eat a s*** and put the video right in this thread.
Hmmm I think it's time I start campaigning for him as well, I sure would like to see that video.;)

[gumboot]

Americans killed millions in Vietnam and China

Um... what? I must have been asleep during the great American invasion of China...

Oliver, please, for the love of all that's holy, go read a history book.

-Gumboot

[WildCat]

Um... what? I must have been asleep during the great American invasion of China...

Oliver, please, for the love of all that's holy, go read a history book.

-Gumboot
Didn't you hear? The so-called Japanese invasion of China was really a US false-flag operation.

[Oliver]

Um... what? I must have been asleep during the great American invasion of China...

Oliver, please, for the love of all that's holy, go read a history book.

-Gumboot


Your optimism is inspiring - too bad that the Government
disagrees with you:

The Fog of War - Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara's Experience:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8653788864462752804

-8653788864462752804

[KoihimeNakamura]

It is also probably wrong.

[Oliver]

It is also probably wrong.


http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/quote.gif ;)

[Matteo Martini]

you really think so? I doubt it very much. It's nice to see that you think that from now on (after Iran anyways) it can only get better, not worse... but I do not share that optimism.


I think that having bases all around the world, is part of of the problem, not of the solution

[gumboot]

Your optimism is inspiring - too bad that the Government
disagrees with you:

The Fog of War - Sec. of Defense Robert McNamara's Experience:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8653788864462752804

-8653788864462752804



What has that got to do with anything? You claimed the US have killed "millions in Vietnam and China". I contend the US has not killed millions in China at all, in fact I'll contend that US military forces (I'm assuming that's what you're talking about) have not killed anyone in China (since the end of WW2).

You respond by posting a documentary about McNamara's eleven lessons learned from the Vietnam War? How is that relevant?

-Gumboot

[Matteo Martini]

What has that got to do with anything? You claimed the US have killed "millions in Vietnam and China". I contend the US has not killed millions in China at all, in fact I'll contend that US military forces (I'm assuming that's what you're talking about) have not killed anyone in China (since the end of WW2).

You respond by posting a documentary about McNamara's eleven lessons learned from the Vietnam War? How is that relevant?

-Gumboot

So, you agree the American troops killed millions in Vietnam, but not killed anyone in China?
BTW, I am not even sure the American army killed millions in Vietnam, even if the Vietnam war directly resulted in about 2 millions of ( mostly ) civilian deaths

[gumboot]

So, you agree the American troops killed millions in Vietnam, but not killed anyone in China? BTW, I am not even sure the American army killed millions in Vietnam, even if the Vietnam war directly resulted in about 2 millions of ( mostly ) civilian deaths


Well just over a million North Vietnamese and NLF combatants were killed/MIA in the Vietnam War, meanwhile the number of civilians killed is wildly debated, ranging from under 1 million to over 5 million.

-Gumboot

[Matteo Martini]

Well just over a million North Vietnamese and NLF combatants were killed/MIA in the Vietnam War, meanwhile the number of civilians killed is wildly debated, ranging from under 1 million to over 5 million.

-Gumboot

So, even more than 2 millions..

[Par]

From 500 thousands to 1.2 million, according to the latest estimatesMaybe 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 200-300Fair enough...


Critical thinking at work.

[Oliver]

Critical thinking at work.


No. The most factual numbers are the ones that are
reported: Source = Iraqbodycount :

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

Disclaimer:

We are not a news organization ourselves and like everyone else can only base our information on what has been reported so far. What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.



...Your numbers? :rolleyes: Fox News? :rolleyes:

[Par]

So, in order to support the figure of “500 thousands to 1.2 million” you cite the “most factual” reports, which state “78,280 – 85,289”.

[Par]

...Your numbers? Fox News?


I see you are still simply unable to relinquish you polarised and tribalist option that anyone who doesn’t agree with your conspiratorial agitprop must, by default, be a hard-right neo-con.

[Matteo Martini]

It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.


So, in order to support the figure of “500 thousands to 1.2 million” you cite the “most factual” reports, which state “78,280 – 85,289”.

You are keeping ignoring evidence that it has been shown to you.
This is called bias.

[gumboot]

So, even more than 2 millions..

Last time I checked 5 million was more than "2 millions".

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

No. The most factual numbers are the ones that are
reported: Source = Iraqbodycount :

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

Disclaimer:




...Your numbers? :rolleyes: Fox News? :rolleyes:


Yes that's right Oliver, the Iraq Body Count only uses Fox News for their sources.

Please try engage your brain for a brief second.

Here's a list of Iraqi newspapers that have websites. (http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/iraq.htm)

Here's some middle east news agencies (http://www.mideastinfo.com/news.html), and here's another list (http://www.mideastweb.org/mewnewslinks.html), and here's another just for fun (http://www.angelfire.com/stars/qatif/meast.htm).

Fox News indeed.

-Gumboot

[Par]

From 500 thousands to 1.2 million, according to the latest estimates
78,359 – 85,371
You are keeping ignoring evidence that it has been shown to you. This is called bias.


The only evidence yet cited shows that you are wrong – very wrong.

[brumsen]

The only evidence yet cited shows that you are wrong – very wrong.

I wonder why you should care about that, given that you've been defending the position that the number of civilian fatalities does not tell us anything useful to a moral evaluation.

And, what about a response to this post (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3234384&postcount=129)of mine?

[E.J.Armstrong]

Ok, so you're not fussed about the accuracy of the numbers then. But what does 911 have to do with Iraq ? Invading Afghanistan was all about "revenge" for 911. Iraq was all about the hunt for WMDs and is all about oil.

Au contraire - it was all about WMD programmes.
No wait. It was about the hunt for WMD programmes.
No wait - it was about protecting the USA from harsh words or something.

Didn't Cheney claim something or other? But then his lips were moving so we all knew he was lying - again.

[soylent]

Out of curiosity...Where did that figure of 500 000 come from ?

I'm aware of the Lancet study that quotes 655 000 also I'm looking at another British site called Iraq Body Count, and they give a range of up to 85 000.

<Iraq Body Count>

Iraq Body Count and the Lancet study don't just use different methodology, they measure different numbers.

The IBC figure is Iraqi civilian deaths due to american and insurgency attacks that they can confirm(from news papers, obituaries, morgues etc.)

The Lancet study looked at excess deaths of any cause and AFAIK make no distinction between insurgents or civilians, violence or disease. Their methodology was to poll what they believe to be a representative subset of the Iraqi populace and use this as their mortality rate for the entire country. Then they subtracted the mortality rate from before the invasion and figured out how many excess deaths have occured(with fairly large error bars AFAIK).

The Lancet's number represents "you break it, you bought it" and the IBC number is a lower bound death toll due to US and insurgency violence.

[Par]

Critical thinking at work.
The only evidence yet cited shows that you are wrong – very wrong.
I wonder why you should care about that, given that you've been defending the position that the number of civilian fatalities does not tell us anything useful to a moral evaluation.


Remember, with those two posts I was highlighting two things: Firstly, Oliver’s uncritical acceptance of Matteo Martini’s blasé eschewal of any need to actually cite a source. Secondly, the latter’s bizarre espousal of a source which clearly shows his claim to be utterly wrong. With regards to those issues, the question of whether or not I believe the figure alone to be useful when drawing moral conclusions is simply not relevant.

[Par]

...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....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...


Just so. However, once you start to assess whether or not a “sufficient number of other factors is held constant” or to “further flesh out this hypothetical situation”, you are no longer comparing death tolls alone. Remember, the only point I sought to make there is that comparing death tolls alone can never result in useful information on which to base moral conclusions.

[Par]

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.


Try as I might – and I did try, believe me – I simply cannot conceive of your statement meaning what you are currently claiming that it means. I have insufficient vitality to discuss that issue any further, so I’ll merely quote it again, for posterity if nothing else.

...Said islamist would be responsible, AND the American government also. It decided to invade a country in the full knowledge that destabilisation would result and that the way the military operation was set up would not allow them to deal with such destabilisation; that is a war-crime. Ergo, the innocent civilian deaths are the result both of the Islamist's actions and the US government actions, and both bear responsibility. However.... in order to substantiate that position it does seem to me that Stout's point about the exact body count needs to be adressed: "What happens if we compare the numbers of "innocents" killed under Saddam's regime, to the numbers killed under the occupation, how far apart might the two totals be?"

[Ion]

So, I point out that I agree that Cheney et al. bear some responsibility for the carnage in Iraq...
They bear all the responsability for the carnage in Iraq:

the killings in Iraq didn't happen under Saddam's regime, but under Bush's war for oil and hegemony.

In Prize of Loyalty by Ron Suskind retracing Paul O'Neill career as a treasurer for Bush,
it is documented a cabinet meeting between Bush, Cheney, Rove, O'Neill, Perle, where the invasion of Iraq by U.S. and oil maps of Iraq were studied in December 2000.

In Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward in page 213, it is shown a proposal for Saddam's discreet exile by France and Jordan, that would have avoided the war.
Bush didn't want Saddam's exile but pretended to give a 48 hours ultimatum to Saddam to leave Iraq that he was sure to be rejected by Saddam because of public humiliation.
Bush was interested in occupying Iraq and blaming Saddam.

Bush and Cheney lying that the war in Iraq was triggered by terror from September 11 2001, that's lack of responsability.
Non sequitur. That's the thread where you made the post implying America is guilty of murdering 500,000 Iraqis...
But America is guilty of murdering thousands of Iraqis.

Learn responsabilty before war.

[Ion]

Well then, Iraq is all hunky-dory. Just suicide bombers, therefore no threats to it.
And Bush started a mission to 'eliberate' Iraq from suicide bombers.

I believe you...

[Ion]

So, you are basically absolving bin Laden of responsibility because he didn't like that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia (bin Laden's main complaint at the time of 9/11)?...
bin Laden hadn't signed U.N. Resolution 1441.

Bush did.

Bush broke 1441.

[Par]

The most candid moral pervert yet.

They bear all the responsability for the carnage in Iraq


Perhaps you can answer: When a Ba’thist, an al-Qaeda jihadi or a member of a sectarian death squad freely chooses to annihilate a marketplace full of innocent men, women children or to sink a power drill into the knee-cap of an Iraqi interpreter, why do you chalk that up as an American war crime? Why is the person who made the choice to and actually physically carried out a brutal and disgusting act of torture or murder simply blameless?

[Par]

So, you are basically absolving bin Laden of responsibility because he didn't like that the U.S. had stationed troops in Saudi Arabia (bin Laden's main complaint at the time of 9/11)?
bin Laden hadn't signed U.N. Resolution 1441. Bush did.
Bush broke 1441.


That’s your reason as to why Osama bin Laden was justified in carrying out the 9/11 attacks?

[a_unique_person]

The most candid moral pervert yet.




Perhaps you can answer: When a Ba’thist, an al-Qaeda jihadi or a member of a sectarian death squad freely chooses to annihilate a marketplace full of innocent men, women children or to sink a power drill into the knee-cap of an Iraqi interpreter, why do you chalk that up as an American war crime? Why is the person who made the choice to and actually physically carried out a brutal and disgusting act of torture or murder simply blameless?

I think the problem is similar to the medical ethic. "First, do no harm". Powell, got it right, he said before they went in, the place would shatter like a crystal. It did. He said that to prevent the chaos that would follow, the would need at least 500,000 troops. He was right.

[Matteo Martini]

Iraq Body Count and the Lancet study don't just use different methodology, they measure different numbers.


So difficult to understand..

[Matteo Martini]

Remember, with those two posts I was highlighting two things: Firstly, Oliver’s uncritical acceptance of Matteo Martini’s blasé eschewal of any need to actually cite a source.

Sources have been cited many times in this forum.
This is the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,3979621.story
This is the NY Times ( same poll ):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/world/middleeast/23iraq.html
There is a comprehensive article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003#Tota l_Iraqi_casualties


Secondly, the latter’s bizarre espousal of a source which clearly shows his claim to be utterly wrong.

Either you are very flawed in basic understanding of English language, or you are severely biased ( or both ).

[gumboot]

Bush broke 1441.


How? UNSC Res.1441 required nothing of the UNSC members other than to "remain seized of the matter". Are you saying that by invading Iraq, the USA failed to "remain seized of the matter"?

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

I think the problem is similar to the medical ethic. "First, do no harm". Powell, got it right, he said before they went in, the place would shatter like a crystal. It did. He said that to prevent the chaos that would follow, the would need at least 500,000 troops. He was right.


Actually I think had the US focused on establishing law and order, and building strong relationships between US units and local people in the first few weeks, they could have achieved stability with the number of troops they had.

The US totally and completely screwed up the occupation in the first weeks after the fall of Baghdad. The really sad thing is the soldiers on the ground could see it happening right in front of their eyes.

-Gumboot

[Matteo Martini]

The US totally and completely screwed up the occupation in the first weeks after the fall of Baghdad.

The US totally and completely screwed up the occupation when they decided to do an occupation ( IMHO ).

[Par]

Sources have been cited many times in this forum.
This is the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq14sep14,1,3979621.story
This is the NY Times ( same poll ):
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/world/middleeast/23iraq.html
There is a comprehensive article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_conflict_in_Iraq_since_2003#Tota l_Iraqi_casualties
Either you are very flawed in basic understanding of English language, or you are severely biased ( or both ).


So, when you accused me of “ignoring the evidence”, you were referring to evidence that hadn’t actually been cited, as opposed to that which had. I see.

[Matteo Martini]

So, when you accused me of “ignoring the evidence”, you were referring to evidence that hadn’t actually been cited, as opposed to that which had. I see.

No.
I was talking about the part of the IraqBodyCount site, where there is written that the 80000 ( about ) deaths are only a minor part of the total number of civilian deaths in Iraq.
The evidence that Oliver has shown you.

[Par]

No. I was talking about the part of the IraqBodyCount site, where there is written that the 80000 ( about ) deaths are only a minor part of the total number of civilian deaths in Iraq. The evidence that Oliver has shown you.


Initially, Oliver cited the Iraq Body Count figure; he also highlighted their warning that their figures are likely much too low. Neither of those factors, however, constitutes a legitimate source for your claim of “500 thousands to 1.2 million”. Therefore, it’s still rather difficult to see which evidence I was supposed to have been ignoring.

[Matteo Martini]

Last time I checked 5 million was more than "2 millions".


So, we agree on that.
Good

[Matteo Martini]

Initially, Oliver cited the Iraq Body Count figure; he also highlighted their warning that their figures are likely much too low. Neither of those factors, however, constitutes a legitimate source for your claim of “500 thousands to 1.2 million”. Therefore, it’s still rather difficult to see which evidence I was supposed to have been ignoring.

No.
Once again.
You wrote " So, in order to support the figure of “500 thousands to 1.2 million” you cite the “most factual” reports [ i.e. the IraqBodyCount site ], which state “78,280 – 85,289”. " ignoring the evidence ( shown by Oliver ) that in that site ( IraqBodyCount ) there is written " It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. "

[Par]

...the evidence ( shown by Oliver ) that in that site ( IraqBodyCount ) there is written " It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media."


The problem, however, is still that said information does not constitute a legitimate source for your claim of “500 thousands to 1.2 million”. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for your claim that I was ignoring it.

[Matteo Martini]

The problem, however, is still that said information does not constitute a legitimate source for your claim of “500 thousands to 1.2 million”. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for your claim that I was ignoring it.

As the evidence you were ignoring is not about the claim of the number of deaths ( " 500 000 to 1 200 000 ), but about the fact that the site IraqBodyCount does not state that the number of civilian deaths in Iraq is 78,280 – 85,289, as you were saying ( post n. 156 )

[Par]

As the evidence you were ignoring is not about the claim of the number of deaths ( " 500 000 to 1 200 000 )...


So, you were referring to something totally different from what was being discussed at the time.

You are keeping ignoring evidence that it has been shown to you.


You were so clear and precise, too.

[Par]

So, in order to support the figure of “500 thousands to 1.2 million” you cite the “most factual” reports, which state “78,280 – 85,289”....the evidence... is... about the fact that the site IraqBodyCount does not state that the number of civilian deaths in Iraq is 78,280 – 85,289, as you were saying...


It might be worth bearing in mind that the words “most factual” were Oliver’s, and not mine.

[Matteo Martini]

So, you were referring to something totally different from what was being discussed at the time.


We were discussing, among other things, about if the IraqBodyCount site was claiming that the civilian lives lost in Iraq were 80000 or not.


You were so clear and precise, too.

Look.
I have no intention to declare that anyone is the winner/loser.
We have understood the point.
Good, let` s move on.

[gumboot]

So, we agree on that.
Good


Huh? This conversation is with Oliver, about "millions of Chinese killed by America". I'm still waiting for him to explain himself.

-Gumboot

[Matteo Martini]

Huh? This conversation is with Oliver, about "millions of Chinese killed by America". I'm still waiting for him to explain himself.

-Gumboot

No.
The conversation was also between you and me.
Posts n. 151, 152, 153, 159 and so on..

[gumboot]

No.
The conversation was also between you and me.
Posts n. 151, 152, 153, 159 and so on..


Yes I entertained your derail. You seem to have a habit of interjecting irrelevant comments into a discussion.

-Gumboot

[Matteo Martini]

Yes I entertained your derail. You seem to have a habit of interjecting irrelevant comments into a discussion.

-Gumboot

Mm..
Maybe not " irrelevant comments ", but comments on facts you do not want to hear..

[gumboot]

Mm..
Maybe not " irrelevant comments ", but comments on facts you do not want to hear..


All your derail concluded with is an agreement that "5 million" is "more than 2 millions". I achieved that level of cognitive excellence when I was about six years old.

Do you have any insight to offer into why Oliver thinks the United States has killed "millions of Chinese" or should I just ignore you?

-Gumboot

[Matteo Martini]

All your derail concluded with is an agreement that "5 million" is "more than 2 millions". I achieved that level of cognitive excellence when I was about six years old.


Quiet down.
Do not always be so angry..
Your health will not be that good, this way


Do you have any insight to offer into why Oliver thinks the United States has killed "millions of Chinese" or should I just ignore you?

-Gumboot

1) While I endorse some of Oliver` s position, I am resposible of what I write;
2) This is what I wrote to you:
" So, you agree the American troops killed millions in Vietnam, but not killed anyone in China?
BTW, I am not even sure the American army killed millions in Vietnam, even if the Vietnam war directly resulted in about 2 millions of ( mostly ) civilian deaths "
3) You can ignore me any time

[gumboot]

Quiet down.
Do not always be so angry..
Your health will not be that good, this way

I'm not angry. :)




2) This is what I wrote to you:
" So, you agree the American troops killed millions in Vietnam, but not killed anyone in China?
BTW, I am not even sure the American army killed millions in Vietnam, even if the Vietnam war directly resulted in about 2 millions of ( mostly ) civilian deaths "
3) You can ignore me any time

Yes, I'm aware of what you wrote. And I'm sure you're aware of what I wrote in response, since you also responded to that. I'm just trying to understand what your point is?

-Gumboot

[Matteo Martini]

I'm not angry. :)

Yes, I'm aware of what you wrote. And I'm sure you're aware of what I wrote in response, since you also responded to that. I'm just trying to understand what your point is?

-Gumboot

I forgot.
That was long time ago.

[gumboot]

I forgot.
That was long time ago.


Hah hah. Okay.

-Gumboot

[Ion]

To:
The most candid moral pervert yet.




Perhaps you can answer: When a Ba’thist, an al-Qaeda jihadi or a member of a sectarian death squad freely chooses to annihilate a marketplace full of innocent men, women children or to sink a power drill into the knee-cap of an Iraqi interpreter, why do you chalk that up as an American war crime? Why is the person who made the choice to and actually physically carried out a brutal and disgusting act of torture or murder simply blameless?
and to:
That’s your reason as to why Osama bin Laden was justified in carrying out the 9/11 attacks?
you and Bush are hiding behind bin Laden.

bin Laden is a small time thug.

A mass murderer is Bush.

Below are Bush's consequences:

.) The San Diego Union Tribune of Tuesday November 13 2007 has the article Iraq wars' impacts on the U.S. economy said to be $1.5 trillion;

.) The San Diego Union Tribune of Tursday November 15 2007 has the article Last year, 35.5 million in U.S. suffered hunger, survey finds;

.) The San Diego Union Tribune of Sunday November 26 2006 has the article Big oil firms are crimpling U.S. economy, data show
Shell's attempt to close refinery raised questions documenting price rigging and record profits by oil companies operating in U.S..

Bush's U.S. = United States of Imbecility

[Ion]

How? UNSC Res.1441 required nothing of the UNSC members other than to "remain seized of the matter". Are you saying that by invading Iraq, the USA failed to "remain seized of the matter"?

-Gumboot
1441 signatories promised not to take action on Iraq but let the U.N. Security Council decide.

Bush signed 1441, and took action on Iraq, in breach of his signature.

[Ion]

Not only this:
1441 signatories promised not to take action on Iraq but let the U.N. Security Council decide.

Bush signed 1441, and took action on Iraq, in breach of his signature.
but Plan of Attack by Bob Woodward documents how French President Chirac and Minister de Villepin ensured this through tough negotiations with Bush.

Bush tried to get another U.N. Resolution to top 1441, and failed.