Unhappy Anniversary

[steverino]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Then why are the deaths before relevant? This is not a statement that depends on facts as it is based entirely on ideology, so quoting numbers is not relevant to your point.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=ft_world

Statistically a South African is 12 times as likely to be murdered than the average American and his chances of being killed are 50 times greater than if he lived in western Europe...

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by steverino

I hope you are right. I mean, I am not "cheering" for a high death count here, for gosh sakes. What statistics do you consider valid? I'd thought the U.N. had valid numbers.

The UN does about the best it can with the data it has, however they are still subject to GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

Therefore, I suggest that both you and President Bush do a better job of getting your facts straight before promoting a war that you may want to wage.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright

A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions

Quote:

...

Albright's comments were shocking, as were the numbers, but doubts were soon raised about their validity. A January 1996 letter to The Lancet found inconsistencies in the mortality figures. A follow-up study in 1996, using the same methodology, found much lower rates of child mortality. In October 1997 the authors of the initial letter wrote again to The Lancet, this time reporting that mortality rates in the follow-up study were "several-fold lower than the estimate for 1995--for unknown reasons." While the initial report of more than 567,000 deaths attracted major news coverage, the subsequent disavowal of those numbers passed unnoticed in the press.

The two most reliable scientific studies on sanctions in Iraq are the 1999 report "Morbidity and Mortality Among Iraqi Children," by Columbia University's Richard Garfield, and "Sanctions and Childhood Mortality in Iraq," a May 2000 article by Mohamed Ali and Iqbal Shah in The Lancet. Garfield, an expert on the public-health impact of sanctions, conducted a comparative analysis of the more than two dozen major studies that have analyzed malnutrition and mortality figures in Iraq during the past decade. He estimated the most likely number of excess deaths among children under five years of age from 1990 through March 1998 to be 227,000. Garfield's analysis showed child mortality rates double those of the previous decade.

...

[steverino]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

The UN does about the best it can with the data it has, however they are still subject to GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

Therefore, I suggest that both you and President Bush do a better job of getting your facts straight before promoting a war that you may want to wage.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011203/cortright

A Hard Look at Iraq Sanctions

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/st...sanctions.html

I agree with the statistics you find valid. I am not sure why you think I am misoverestimating the statistics.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by steverino

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?nav=ft_world

Statistically a South African is 12 times as likely to be murdered than the average American and his chances of being killed are 50 times greater than if he lived in western Europe...

I know south africa is violent, and it is an interesting case from a gun control issue, but your arguement is not about the ammount of violence, and introducing numbers is not an aproach I can see as being effective for your arguement.

You seem to be argueing that freedom is worth great sacrifices in terms of deaths and violence. Then comparing numbers of deaths under sadam to current deaths is not meaningful.

So I just see you cluttering your arguement with unneeded data that can be refuted.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

I know south africa is violent, and it is an interesting case from a gun control issue, but your arguement is not about the ammount of violence, and introducing numbers is not an aproach I can see as being effective for your arguement.

You seem to be argueing that freedom is worth great sacrifices in terms of deaths and violence. Then comparing numbers of deaths under sadam to current deaths is not meaningful.

So I just see you cluttering your arguement with unneeded data that can be refuted.

Here's a curious idea. Let's take Crossbow's numbers as "the best available" and look at 227,000 dead over an 8 year period. (We'll ignore the irresponsible acts of Saddam in administering oil for food distribution, and blame it all on the UNSC embargo for the sake of simplicity.)

Now, look at the death toll in Iraq. Since 2003, it seems to have averaged 30,000 to 40,000 per year, (I recall seeing a number of 35,000 for the year 2005) but that is a confused number, since the cause and effect of any given death gets complex when one balances "car bomb blew up" to "no electricity so the patient died on the OR table."

As a gross comparison, the death rate from "causes" of the outside nature looks to be around 30,000 per year with no war, and 30-40,000 per year with the civil war.

The critical difference is the significant lack of societal stability, and how one accounts for the losses of over a million refugees (who Saddam most likely would not have let leave the country) and 30-50% unemployment. Those two elements were not present during the embargo.

Oh, yeah, and the lost division of US service members over 4 years.

The body count doesn't really tell the whole story.

DR

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

The critical difference is the significant lack of societal stability, and how one accounts for the losses of over a million refugees (who Saddam most likely would not have let leave the country) and 30-50% unemployment. Those two elements were not present during the embargo.

Are you saying unemployment was significantly lower during the embargo?

[steverino]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

The body count doesn't really tell the whole story.

DR

Exactly.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Here's a curious idea. Let's take Crossbow's numbers as "the best available" and look at 227,000 dead over an 8 year period. (We'll ignore the irresponsible acts of Saddam in administering oil for food distribution, and blame it all on the UNSC embargo for the sake of simplicity.)

Now, look at the death toll in Iraq. Since 2003, it seems to have averaged 30,000 to 40,000 per year, (I recall seeing a number of 35,000 for the year 2005) but that is a confused number, since the cause and effect of any given death gets complex when one balances "car bomb blew up" to "no electricity so the patient died on the OR table."

As a gross comparison, the death rate from "causes" of the outside nature looks to be around 30,000 per year with no war, and 30-40,000 per year with the civil war.

The critical difference is the significant lack of societal stability, and how one accounts for the losses of over a million refugees (who Saddam most likely would not have let leave the country) and 30-50% unemployment. Those two elements were not present during the embargo.

Oh, yeah, and the lost division of US service members over 4 years.

The body count doesn't really tell the whole story.

DR

I am not claiming it does. I just don't see why useing data supports his largely emotional arguement. It does not matter how many more die every year, as they are now free, so I don't see how the death rate durring sactions is relevant.

If you discount an increase in mortality rate then why reference the previous one at all?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by steverino

Exactly.

Then why mention it at all?

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Are you saying unemployment was significantly lower during the embargo?

As I understand it (and if you can correct me, that would be fine) the unemployment problem was mitigated by the various socialist policies of the Ba'athist government, to include the food rationing and other public services, electrical grid being a bit more reliable, water being more reliable, and people using both the formal and informal economy to make a buck. The restaurant business, for example, was alive and well.

That is as far as I can take that, as I am not able to cite the book on the Iraqi economy from 1990-2001 chapter and verse.

ETA: Some interesting background info here. UNICEF reported that by 2003, about 60% of the people were dependent on the government's food rationing program.

ETA II: There, I found something. Based on a UN study,

Quote:

Unemployment in 1987 was estimated at 4.49%, with female unemployment of 7.28% higher than male unemployment of 4.13%. By 1997, female unemployment was reported to have doubled, reaching17.6%; reasons included the drop in GNP and the pressing need for more family income, which led to an increase in the number of women looking for work. In any case, even those who are employed seek second and third jobs. Teachers, whose salaries are as low as $3 a month, doctors, and civil servants seek income where they can find it, driving taxis, giving special
lessons, or opening private practice. Studies quoted in the National Report estimated that as many as 81% of the population was living beneath the poverty line in 1993, although this had improved to 55% by 1997.

DR

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

As I understand it (and if you can correct me, that would be fine) the unemployment problem was mitigated by the various socialist policies of the Ba'athist government,

To a degree, yes. Unemployment was very high, though, and while the Ba'athists may have provided a safety net of sorts, it was quite meager. Unemployment figures always vary by the definition used, but this recent ABC/USA Today/BBC poll which is being talked about so much here only had 10% of respondants claiming to be unemployed (though since they eliminated the option of "self-employed", comparing with earlier results from the same group is problematic). Average and median incomes have also increased significantly.

Quote:

to include the food rationing and other public services, electrical grid being a bit more reliable, water being more reliable, and people using both the formal and informal economy to make a buck.

Public utilities were more reliable in the sense that availability didn't fluctuate much with time, but they were still sparse and also heavily concentrated in Sunni areas, with little to no service in many Shia areas. Power generation capacity actually exceeds pre-war levels, but it's a complicated issue since demand has shot up considerably as well (because more people now own things like refrigerators, computers, etc - also indicated by the poll) so that hours of available power haven't increased, and because distribution patterns have changed (some areas get less hours with electricity, but some places, particularly in the south, get more).

Edit: the poll in question is here:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1033aIraqpoll.pdf
It's interesting, but the results do need to be examined critically since the report oversampled sunnis by about a factor of 2.

[steverino]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You seem to be argueing that freedom is worth great sacrifices in terms of deaths and violence. Then comparing numbers of deaths under sadam to current deaths is not meaningful.

I was arguing that those against the war were willing to accept a high Iraqi body count under sanctions, but not a high Iraqi body count under war.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by steverino

I was arguing that those against the war were willing to accept a high Iraqi body count under sanctions, but not a high Iraqi body count under war.

Yes, and as one is higher than the other that is not that strong an arugement. As for saying it will get better later, well why should that prediction be taken more seriously than the war will quickly pay for itself after we get welcomed as liberators?

[steverino]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yes, and as one is higher than the other

I am having trouble communicating my point. I admit I am not getting it across. Maybe if we all sat around in folding chairs in a big circle in a church basement we could hash this out.

I'll try again. I am saying that the statistic of sanctions would be higher if there were still sanctions in lieu of the war. As Darth said, statistics are extremely nuanced, and we are all speculating some "what-if's" here.
I don't know how else to explain my position.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by steverino

I believe Mr. Bush has earned bashing, but making up new, cute, hate-names for the president weakens the person's argument as does constantly calling him stupid and a liar. It just doesn't further the conversation. It's just bumper stickers. Some bumper stickers contain some truth, but, OK. We did that. It's stale.

And labeling people as "Bush-bashers" does what, exactly?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

If they end up squandering an opportunity for something better that we present them with, does that make it wrong for us to have given them such an opportunity?

I ...what?

You're saying we did the people of Iraq a favor and they're just being ungrateful?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I ...what?

You're saying we did the people of Iraq a favor and they're just being ungrateful?

Did I say that? No, I did not. Gratefulness (or lack thereof) is not high on my list of priorities, and I did not mention or even allude to it in that post.

[steverino]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

And labeling people as "Bush-bashers" does what, exactly?

I was responding to an Upchurch post. Oh wait, that's you.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Did I say that? No, I did not. Gratefulness (or lack thereof) is not high on my list of priorities, and I did not mention or even allude to it in that post.

Well, to answer your question, yes, it is wrong to try to make a country into a democracy at the point of a gun.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Well, to answer your question, yes, it is wrong to try to make a country into a democracy at the point of a gun.

Was occupation and forcible democratization of Japan wrong? I don't think so, most Japanese don't think so, most Americans don't think so, but from your answer I must conclude that you do think so.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by steverino

I believe Mr. Bush has earned bashing, but making up new, cute, hate-names for the president weakens the person's argument as does constantly calling him stupid and a liar. It just doesn't further the conversation. It's just bumper stickers. Some bumper stickers contain some truth, but, OK. We did that. It's stale.

My bold. I agree with you. Using loaded language does not promote intelligent dialog. For example, I offer these unattributed quotes from this thread as example of using language that interferes with the ongoing dialog:

Quote:

So you were a pro-Iraqi-sanctions-guy, eh, genius?

Quote:

How would Gore have screwed up after 9/11 if he'd been president? Would we have been safer with him? Would there have been maybe ten more attacks, or twenty?

How would Kerry have screwed up handling the war had he won?

We've got to shame whoever this guy is for interfering with this very interesting thread.

[steverino]

Sez- I agree with you the "genius" quote contains an ad-hom attack, but it makes a point that I elaborated on. The quotes about Gore and Kerry are not bumper stickers or oft-repeated statements. They make my point on this thread completely. Brown said "there are only 2 questions to ask" and I say the important questions to ask are what if Gore or Kerry were president instead? In my opinion, the Sears Tower in Chicago would have been hit, among other things. It is valid to explore these things. To rant that Bush lied and call him names is not constructive. Loaded language is fine if a point is trying to be made.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Was occupation and forcible democratization of Japan wrong? I don't think so, most Japanese don't think so, most Americans don't think so, but from your answer I must conclude that you do think so.

Not even close to being comparable situations: The Emperor of Japan, his government, and, by extension, his people accepted defeat at the hands of the Allies. They surrendered themselves to the change.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Not even close to being comparable situations: The Emperor of Japan, his government, and, by extension, his people accepted defeat at the hands of the Allies. They surrendered themselves to the change.

Hmmm, we can play this Japan analogy for a while longer, and suggest that if we had nuked a few Iraqi cities, they'd be much more tractable.

On the other hand, maybe it is possible that each scenario needs to be examined on its own merits, without reference to other cookie cutter style, "similar but different" situations, to understand the situation at hand.

Something that Clausewitz wrote comes to mind:

Quote:

“The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the states-man and commander have to make is to establish . . . the kind of war on which they are embarking.”

The same is true for those who are engaging in analysis or critique of a war.

Quote:

“No one starts a war—or rather, no one in his senses ought to do so— without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.”

DR

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Not even close to being comparable situations:

I never said they were. But you made a categorical statement. Now either you believe that statement, in which case it applies to both situations despite any difference, or you don't believe it and were merely using it as a rhetorical bludgeon. Which is it?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I never said they were. But you made a categorical statement. Now either you believe that statement, in which case it applies to both situations despite any difference, or you don't believe it and were merely using it as a rhetorical bludgeon. Which is it?

You misunderstand. Japan agreed to the government change as part of the terms of their surrender. My statement does not apply to them.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by steverino

On the contrary, Bob. The fact that there might have been more domestic terror attacks and many more dead Americans would have been an outcome of higher casualties. Like you said, we will never know. And like I have said, naturally President George Bush gets no credit from the bashers.

That was Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Taliban and Al Q, not Saddam and the Bathists.
All them damn mid-easterners look alike, right?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

You misunderstand. Japan agreed to the government change as part of the terms of their surrender. My statement does not apply to them.

It most certainly does. They surrendered at the point of a gun (and an atomic one at that). We forced democracy on them at gunpoint. Don't kid yourself that it was anything else.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It most certainly does. They surrendered at the point of a gun (and an atomic one at that). We forced democracy on them at gunpoint. Don't kid yourself that it was anything else.

The point is that they surrendered and accepted Allied control.

I know it is anecdotal (and second hand to boot), but my grandfather was in Japan when the Emperor surrendered. According to him, "when the Emperor said that the fighting was over, by God, the fighting was over." (his words and emphasis) Within the span of a week or so, the Japanese people went from wanting to kill my grandfather nearly any way they could to inviting him into their homes for meals and to trade.

(an amusing aside: he was getting a hair cut and a shave somewhere and he became acutely aware that a man who he was most likely shooting at very recently had a razor blade pressed up against his neck. Obviously, nothing happened or I wouldn't be writing this, but it really stressed to my grandfather the obedience the Japanese gave to their emperor.)

When democracy came to Japan, the fighting was done*. Period.

Compare to Iraq, who have not surrendered in any definition of the word, where we are holding elections amidst gunfire and explosions from those who we are actively fighting against.

You're wrong, Zig. There is a fundamental difference between what happened in Japan at the end of WWII and what is happening now in Iraq. Yes, it took force to put the Japanese in the position they were in, but they ultimately accepted the Allied victory. If the Allied forces tried to push a democratic government on the Japanese before they had surrendered, I'm fairly certain we would have seen something comparable to what we are now seeing in Iraq**.

* excluding, of course, the few and far flung folks who thought the Emperor's message of surrender was an Allied trick.
** eta: except maybe with more laughing.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

The point is that they surrendered and accepted Allied control.

Yes: at the point of a gun, and after having been NUKED.

Quote:

I know it is anecdotal (and second hand to boot), but my grandfather was in Japan when the Emperor surrendered. According to him, "when the Emperor said that the fighting was over, by God, the fighting was over."

You're pointing to factors which may make the democratization of Japan at gunpoint easier. That's fine, but it's also irrelevant, because your statement was a claim regarding absolute wrongness under any condition, not about ease, practical feasibility, or suitability in any particular instance. Either you believe your own claim and consider the forced democratization of Japan to be wrong, or you don't believe your own claim, and your objections to our actions in Iraq must depend upon something more specific than such a generalized claim. I believe it to be the latter, because I think you're too smart to base your view of a complex topic on such a simple and trite platitude. I just wish you'd have enough respect for your opponents to actually bring forward a more substantive argument than one which I don't think you even believe in.

[fishbob]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

You're wrong, Zig. There is a fundamental difference between what happened in Japan at the end of WWII and what is happening now in Iraq. Yes, it took force to put the Japanese in the position they were in, but they ultimately accepted the Allied victory. If the Allied forces tried to push a democratic government on the Japanese before they had surrendered, I'm fairly certain we would have seen something comparable to what we are now seeing in Iraq

So "Mission Accomplished" was metaphorical?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by fishbob

So "Mission Accomplished" was metaphorical?

It could only be literal in a very narrowly construed way. There certainly wasn't a surrender or acceptance of US victory.

[steverino]

Originally Posted by fishbob

That was Afghanistan, not Iraq.
Taliban and Al Q, not Saddam and the Bathists.
All them damn mid-easterners look alike, right?

You make a good point. However, some believe that the war on terror being fought there which now includes Al Q and others would have been fought here instead.

And no. I am not a redneck who says they are all alike. On the contrary, I believe 95% + of Middle East residents, and those in the Diaspora, desire democracy, peace, and recociliation with warring factions, and Israel.

Nuance is what I am trying my best to explore on these boards, not bumper sticker opinions.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by steverino

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/st...sanctions.html

I agree with the statistics you find valid. I am not sure why you think I am misoverestimating the statistics.

I suggest that you look to your own statistics for your answers.

You first started off saying that over a million Iraqis died due to the sanctions.

Then later you (after I prompted you accordingly) find other statistics that state that approximately 227,713 Iraqis have died due to sanctions. This latter data also goes on to say that Iraqis dying due to the sanctions had all but stopped by 1998, and significantly contradicts your original posting on the subject.

Therefore, your original assertion that the current Iraq War is justified by making it possible to end the trade sanctions has now been shown to be quite incorrect. Thus, I reiterate my original advice that both you and President Bush do a better job of getting your facts straight before promoting a war that you may want to wage.

[steverino]

Originally Posted by Crossbow

I suggest that you look to your own statistics for your answers.

You first started off saying that over a million Iraqis died due to the sanctions.

Then later you (after I prompted you accordingly) find other statistics that state that approximately 227,713 Iraqis have died due to sanctions. This latter data also goes on to say that Iraqis dying due to the sanctions had all but stopped by 1998, and significantly contradicts your original posting on the subject.

Therefore, your original assertion that the current Iraq War is justified by making it possible to end the trade sanctions has now been shown to be quite incorrect. Thus, I reiterate my original advice that both you and President Bush do a better job of getting your facts straight before promoting a war that you may want to wage.

I do not say the "over 1 million" figure. I looked back over all my posts. The closest thing I could find is my post quoting a WIKI article on sanctions saying some critics put the figure to over a million. I was going by the UNICEF statistics, which were lower. Also, the specific body count is not my point, but that pre-war brutality existed. Not sure where you get that body-count-specific idea. I can check more on this later because I have to got to work, but this is a statistic in WIKI under "Iraqi Sanctions":

The sanctions regime was finally ended on May 22, 2003 (with certain arms-related exceptions) by paragraph 10 of UNSC, after approximately 1.5 million people had died.Resolution 1483. [17]

This idea with my deliberately tinkering with the facts is silly. There are lots of statistics and know one knows for sure. Again, here it is saying 1.5 million. It sounds high. But I am not cherry-picking high statistics, and again, accept the lower UNICEF statistic.

[Brown]

Originally Posted by Brown

The US-led invasion force charged into Iraq four years ago: March 2003.

It was the most foolish action by US policymakers within my lifetime. And four years later, the situation has not been corrected, or even improved. On the contrary, it has gotten much, much worse.

...

It's time to end the occupation. I do not want to observe a fifth unhappier anniversary a year from now.

Today I observe a fifth unhappier anniversary. Nearly 4,000 US citizens in the service are dead, and for Iraqis, the numbers are many times that. Things are worse, not better, and all we get is more Bush ************ about how things are going to get better.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by Brown

Today I observe a fifth unhappier anniversary. Nearly 4,000 US citizens in the service are dead, and for Iraqis, the numbers are many times that. Things are worse, not better, and all we get is more Bush ************ about how things are going to get better.

My parents lived through tougher times than this. The trick is to stop the worse and get the trend moving in the other direction.

Takes work. We'll see who is interested in that.

Betting the under on anyone in Washington in a suit.

DR

[mrbaracuda]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

This reminds me of the old psychological profile questions: would you rather drop an anvil on your foot or break your nose?

What if I go for the anvil? WHAT THEN?

[President Bush]

Originally Posted by Brown

Today I observe a fifth unhappier anniversary. Nearly 4,000 US citizens in the service are dead, and for Iraqis, the numbers are many times that. Things are worse, not better, and all we get is more Bush ************ about how things are going to get better.

When we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.