The cost of freeing Iraq

[techumseh]

Continuing Collateral Damage, a report on the cost of "liberating" Iraq.

Executive Summary
The war on Iraq and its aftermath exacted a heavy toll on combatants and civilians, who paid and continue to pay the price in death, injury and mental and physical ill health. Between 21,700 and 55,000 people died between March 20 and October 20, 2003 (the date on which this report went to press), while the health and environmental consequences of the conflict will be felt for many years to come.

Here's the link: http://www.talkleft.com/archives/004870.html


Hey, it's the price of "freedom". I'll bet the Iraqi's will be eternally grateful.

[DaShi]

.1/10

[Nubclear]

I have a hard time believing those numbers.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The fact that their number range varies over 100% from minimum to maximum show they're pulling numbers out of their ass.

Also, O brilliant foreign policy visionary, what would you have done?

(a) Left Saddam Hussein and the Baath party in power and continued sanctions ad infinitum (given that sanctions didn't prevent Hussein from building palaces and monuments to himself, while infrastructure and public health and safety went to **** for ordinary Iraqis?

or

(b) Left Hussein and the Baathists in power, but canned the sanctions and said "Go ahead and rearm and build more palaces now that you have all the sanctions removed. You've proven what we've all known all along, that the UN is a bunch of impotent sockstuffers and that sanctions are a Lima Delta tool for those who feel they have to do something, but don't have the balls to really do anything, or to admit that in dealing with dictatorial *******s like you, sanctions are just a way of slowly, passively killing innocents while you continue to thrive."

Why is it there's never any leftist handwringing about the cost of leaving this kind of ******* in power?

[ravagon]

So twenty to fifty thousand people died over a 7 month period in a country with a population of 20-odd million ... ?

So what exactly is the norm for a 7 month period in a similar (third world) country with a similar population?

[techumseh]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
The fact that their number range varies over 100% from minimum to maximum show they're pulling numbers out of their ass.

You can't possibly have read and analized this report in the time since I posted this, so what is your basis for saying so? As my math teacher used to say, show your work.

Also, O brilliant foreign policy visionary, what would you have done?

(a) Left Saddam Hussein and the Baath party in power and continued sanctions ad infinitum (given that sanctions didn't prevent Hussein from building palaces and monuments to himself, while infrastructure and public health and safety went to **** for ordinary Iraqis?

or

(b) Left Hussein and the Baathists in power, but canned the sanctions and said "Go ahead and rearm and build more palaces now that you have all the sanctions removed. You've proven what we've all known all along, that the UN is a bunch of impotent sockstuffers and that sanctions are a Lima Delta tool for those who feel they have to do something, but don't have the balls to really do anything, or to admit that in dealing with dictatorial *******s like you, sanctions are just a way of slowly, passively killing innocents while you continue to thrive."

Why is it there's never any leftist handwringing about the cost of leaving this kind of ******* in power?

You know, this self serving hypocrisy no longer fools anyone. When Saddam was a US puppet and fought Iran for the Americans, he was supplied with all kinds of arms, including the WMD's your regime was so anxious to recover, and embraced by by none other than Don Rumsfeld. (I know this was never shown on American news coverage, but Oprah got ahold of the footage and had the courage to air it. AFAIK, it's the only time it's been broadcast in the US.) All his crimes were overlooked by US governments as long as he was useful to the Americans.

First it was weapons of mass destruction, when they weren't found, it was links to al Queda. When every serious intellegence analyst sneered at that whopper, then all of a sudden the war was about bringing "freedom and democracy" to Iraq. This despite any reasonable modicum of post war planning to restore public order or utilities, let alone nation building.

The fact is that the US has a long history supporting dictators when it suits them, and has never given a damn about elites robbing the poor in any country, as long as American corporations get to the front of the line.

If the numbers in this report are overestimates, then what is a reasonable number, MtG? And what is an acceptable number of deaths? Don't tell me - what ever it takes, right?

[Dis]

talkleft.com?

.000000000000000000000000000001/10

[Dis]

although I have to agree.

I really don't agree with killing innocent soldiers. They did nothing wrong. They can't help it if their leader was an idiot.

The soldiers and civilians did not deserve to die. They were only trying to defend their country against outside attack- as we would do

[Nubclear]

Or as Ming would say...

1/.00000000000000000000000000000000000001

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Why is it there's never any leftist handwringing about the cost of leaving this kind of ******* in power?

Come now, we all know who helped Saddam to get in power and helped him to stay there.

The US got upset not because Saddam was nasty - he always had been that way - but because Saddam no longer was one of the US's nasty lackeys.

[Dis]

Soviet Union?

[laurentius]

usa usa usa

[Ned]

There is no handring on the left because the left has only one enemy, the United States, and more particularly, any Republican president.

Also, leftists, explain, if you would, what was Bush's reason for invading Iraq if he knew, as you contend, the intelligence about WMD was faulty?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Ned
There is no handring on the left because the left has only one enemy, the United States, and more particularly, any Republican president.

Yes, and while the right knew about Al Qaeda and it's growing threat it decided to not go after Bin Laden but...Bill Clinton
Face it, both the democrats and the republicans in America are simply organizations to promote whomevers at the top. The only difference between them is what lies they spew to convince the masses.

Also, leftists, explain, if you would, what was Bush's reason for invading Iraq if he knew, as you contend, the intelligence about WMD was faulty?

Personally, I don't really know.
At first I thought he was stupid, and then I thought he was evil, and now I'm not sure if he's stupid or evil

[laurentius]

Money, power, expanding americas influence and religious fundamantalism