The Iraq War Is Over: Who Won?

Your numbers are wrong. Wikileaks, The Iraq Body Count Project, Associated Press, Iraqi Health Ministry, and WorldHealth Organizations all have numbers less than 200,00...and thats TOTAL civilains killed....most of them killed by insurgents. The deaths as a result of the sanctions are on Saddam Hussien, who decided to be aggressive and unresponsive towards the UN. Talk to France and Russia, who profited tremendously from the program if you want someone to blame.

I am happy that those idealistic fighters were killed. I saw what they did to civilains in Iraq. I don't have a symapthetic bone in my body for those men.

What cash did the U.S. earn in the Iraq War...thats almost as silly as the Oil argument.

Holding the U.S. responsible for what Saddam did to his own people for 30+ years is also silly. Do you want to just go ahead and blame the U.S. for every civilain killed by a dictator in the world?

 

The US certainly didn't lose. But for all we know Iraq will fall to crazy levels of terror now that we're gone so just because we didn't lose doesn't mean we for sure had a positive enough of an effect.

 

1) what did we win?
2) who cares what iraq does
3)who cares?

why do you feel obligated to "fix" things in countries that they tell you need fixing?

 

So the Shia are going to 'out vote' the Sunni? Not a chance.

My definition of a 'leader' is someone who 'follows' the polls. America is blessed that it has a lot of 'leaders'.

 

If I had to pick a winner - Israel. The $1,000,000,000,000 lost and the 7,000 dead GIs is a small price to pay to get Saddam the Dictator off Israel's back for a while.

 

nothing more patriotic is for young american men to die for Israel... truly are american hero's.

 

What actually did you get out of it?

Oil?

No.

A government that can govern?

No.

An end to sectarian killing?

No.

A puppet government that will do the US's bidding?

No.

Who actually lost?

The USA.

That's who lost.

 

Where did you get 7,000 from? I can't believe how people just make up numbers.

 

1. I was referring to the deaths related to the sanctions. I've seen the Iraq body count and i consider those pretty accurate numbers and i'm aware that they are only related to violent deaths most of them not directly attributed to the military. Besides deaths related to the lack of food and medical treatment from the sanctions it is also suspected that many deaths that happened latter were caused by the DU rounds which can be attributed to the British and American forces in the first gulf war. What did the sanctions accomplish? What do they usually accomplish? They don't work well enough especially against brutal dictators like Saddam.
I'm not here to talk about the sanctions though. I was trying to point out how you were referring to high estimations as fact to justify the interventions. I do blame France, Russia, Germany, Spain, the UK and others too. I said "the west" in a manner usually referring to Eurocentric countries. America also played a part in this specifically the CDC.
2. I wouldn't expect an idealistic fighter to sympathize with his idealistic enemies.
3. The US earned little in fact i'm rather surprised America went to war at all. The information on WMDs was sketchy at best. Some companies did profit but i would assume they expected more revenue from no bid contracts but because of retaliation made less. I find in particular Cheney's' activities with his former company questionable and not just in regard to Iraq.
4. The countries that supported Saddam when he was killing hundreds of thousands all have responsibility. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point of view. I thought you might consider America the good country in all of this. The country with a high moral ground? I apologize if I was wrong. Do you see the United States of America as the country that in the end did what was necessary? If so i was wrong about you being idealistic, your bitter. Strangely that is much more… respectable. I could change what i wrote above about you being idealistic but i think it will allow you to better understand my naivety.

 

No it's your figures which are incomplete.

The WHO figure was for 2006 that's over five years ago and people are still being killed. The body count only counts bodies taken to a morgue, many Iraqis just bury their own dead.

The only reliable method is a survey, like the Lancet survey.

 

Better yet, where did I get the $1,000,000,000,000.

 

Well, you know the old saw "it was their choice". Only they went to their graves believing they were dying for America.

 

Forget the math- the Iraqis that survived are the ones the will prosper under Democracy.

 

And allow Iran more regional power.... Yeah, the Israeli's were big time winners.

 

Most of the ones who are dead won too, because their children and grandchildren will never know what life under Saddam was like, and will now control their own government.

If we make the same assumptions you are, then that is true. But I reject your premise that Saddam was not a threat.

Then we are in agreement.

 

The sickest part is the ones who went to their graves believing they were fighting those responsible for 9/11. They were well and truly had by a ruthless government.

 

Yeah, I wish they'd post a link to the website with the random number generator they use for those figures.

 

Like everything else involving Bush vis-a-vis Iraq, that is also turning out to be a myth.

 

I'm sure the politicians on the right have taken note on how easy it is to stampede the American public into killing their own sons and daughters.

 

Lol, I guess you just make (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go, huh?

 

What are you babbling about? I said hundreds of thousands. The Lancet study estimates the number of civllians killed by Bush and his conservative supporters at over 600,000. But even using the lower number you mention means 40,000 to 80,000 people were killed in a completely unnecessary war based on lies. And there would be no insurgents if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq.

 

And these are the same folks whining about immigrants. They have no shame.

 

I'm rather rare in this thread because I try and take a balanced look at everything. The majority of the people in this forum are blatantly making up facts, ignoring others, and as a whole allowing their partisan politics to show their ugly faces. I think its a much more complicated issue. Nothings every black and white.

There's been very little direct correlation between DU rounds and deaths. If any have died, its been very very few.

The sanctions fall on Saddam. Other countries aren't automatically responsible for the deaths of people under a brutal dictatorship. Ultimately, its the Iraqis responsibility in who rules their country. Now, just because I believe this doesn't mean I don't think its a GOOD thing Saddam is gone. It also doesn't mean I think the U.S. has a responsibility to get rid of every dictator in the world...as many biased posters believe MUST happen for me to come to this conclusion.

I look at all aspects of the conflict and decide what the good and the bad is. Most people here won't admit to a SINGLE good result of the conflict which is being intellectually dishonest. I think that the biggest issue with the Iraq was in terms of the U.S. role in it is, was it worth it? I think in 10 years we'll be able to answer that question definitively.

Idealism has nothing to do with it. If you could see what these foriegn fighters did to Iraqi civilains you'd think they were evil. Moral fighters who are just "misguided" don't take cover behind civilains, directly target civilains in mass bombings, using fear and intimidation (torture) to force civilains to help them, rob and rape civilains, or follow none of the rules of war. Now, most of the posters in this thread will completely ignore this or pretend it didn't happen. Even more ignorantly, they'll try and somehow compare this to Abu Grahib, as though a single unsanctioned abuse by the United States "evens" the score against an insurgency that systematically raped, murdered, and tortured civilains on an almost daily basis for years (and continues to do so).

 

The Lancet survey has been debunked countless times. I quoted multiple sources that are all very similar. The Lancet study only surveyed 2000 Iraqis and then tried to extrapolate the entire population. Anyone who knows the first thing about statistics knows how flawed that is.

 

The Lancet study is more than flawed. I showed you multiple sources that all have similar numbers. The Lancet study is an outlier that partisan posters cling dearly to. Even wikileaks has numbers that coincide with everyone elses.