Comment Re:bad trend (Score 1) 571
>> It's horrible that roughly 32-38,000 have died in the Iraqi war, but what is this number compared to the execution of 600,000 Iraqi civilians under Saddam? Or the 100,000 Kurds? Or the 500,000 Iranians?
>It's unfortunate that the amount of people that had to die. However we don't know if less people would have died if Saddam had remained in power or not. So if you're going to play with statistics, you better find statistics that show it was worth while. For all we know, far less people could have died if Iraq was left alone.
To give the benefit of the doubt, I'll use the lowest number of Iraqi civilian deaths per day under Saddam, which is 80. That statistic is made of 8,000 days that Iraq was underneath Saddam's rule. In the Iraqi war, there is currently 29 deaths per day on average. This is taken from 1,035 days of the Iraqi war. I do have to say you are correct, however, because for all we know, far less people could have died if Saddam was still in power. After all, there were only so many more people Saddam had to kill before he would have been satisfied, right?
> The problem with the figures you give is that they only reflect the people who have died so far. The crisis isn't over yet, and there is certainly potential for things to get much much worse in the next few years. (BTW, the US was funding Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war, which certainly complicates your argument regarding the 500,000 Iranians)
You are forgetting we also helped the Iranians. We played both sides in that war, which was a very poor side to take. And as far as the figures with current deaths, you're correct. It's not over. See the argument above. A little algebra will show you it's better we became involved than not.
>It's unfortunate that the amount of people that had to die. However we don't know if less people would have died if Saddam had remained in power or not. So if you're going to play with statistics, you better find statistics that show it was worth while. For all we know, far less people could have died if Iraq was left alone.
To give the benefit of the doubt, I'll use the lowest number of Iraqi civilian deaths per day under Saddam, which is 80. That statistic is made of 8,000 days that Iraq was underneath Saddam's rule. In the Iraqi war, there is currently 29 deaths per day on average. This is taken from 1,035 days of the Iraqi war. I do have to say you are correct, however, because for all we know, far less people could have died if Saddam was still in power. After all, there were only so many more people Saddam had to kill before he would have been satisfied, right?
> The problem with the figures you give is that they only reflect the people who have died so far. The crisis isn't over yet, and there is certainly potential for things to get much much worse in the next few years. (BTW, the US was funding Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war, which certainly complicates your argument regarding the 500,000 Iranians)
You are forgetting we also helped the Iranians. We played both sides in that war, which was a very poor side to take. And as far as the figures with current deaths, you're correct. It's not over. See the argument above. A little algebra will show you it's better we became involved than not.
