Estimated casualties of a war on Iraq: 1 million people!

[SlowwHand]

Bush can stay off the campaign trail, and he'll still win.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by GePap
Edan:

Back on 'topic'
I could buy 1 million casualties: ie, 1 million people killed, injured, made homeless, so forth and so on, but only if the war does not go well. 1 million dead is so far beyond reality that I can't see anyone believing such a statistic. Under 30,000 killed (mostly Iraqi soldiers) if all goes well, perhaps even less. Worst possible war outcome, maybe 100,000. I can't see the US using nukes even if Saddam uses Chem. and bio against US forces: Cost of reconstruction would be too high, and if you are there to save Iraqis form Saddam, what good do you do them by vaporizing them for Saddam's actions?

The good is you test the nuclear weapons at least the tactical nukes, and than later study the effects of limited exposure to radiation on the population.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Bush can stay off the campaign trail, and he'll still win.

Bush can go to the elections in Iraq and he 'd win there as well .

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Except that 2000 is still way less than my estimate of 10,000.

I only used the 1978 Offensive. I said nothing of the 1982 attack (and on a technicality, I will be nice and leave out Sabra and Shatilla), or Palestinians killed in both intifadas, and before.

If you estimate 10,000 (which might be a bit low by a couple of thousand), then you would agree that 7 or 8 Palestinians (min.) have died for each israeli killed by them. Hardly equal losses.


If we have a 'victory' in Iraq, even if the economy is slow (very likely), the loyalists for Bush will come out in force, while I see the democratc stil somewhat demoralized.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap
I said nothing of the 1982 attack

I thought we weren't counting wars?

Hardly equal losses.

Yes, but that wasn't the point of my post. My point was to show that comparing Israel to Saddam wasn't a good comparison. Even with an estimate of ~12,000 over 55 years, that in no way compares to the hundreds of thousand Kurds Saddam has killed over two decades.

If we have a 'victory' in Iraq, even if the economy is slow (very likely), the loyalists for Bush will come out in force, while I see the democratc stil somewhat demoralized.

Depends of course, on what is meant by "victory". If we discover major WMD stockpiles or facilities, that will make Bush unlikely to lose (unless the economy is really in the toilet). If there aren't any discovered or the post-war Iraq is extremely unstable, it will make him less untouchable.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Gatekeepeer,

You meant Kosovo? The evidence of an ethnic cleansing is seriously lacking, or else the court in Hagues wouldn't have such as hard time dealing with Slobodan Milsoevic.

I suppose it can come down to stuff like, "How many bodies in a mass grave equals ethnic cleansing?" and "I had no control over what my subordinates did."

And judging from Milosevic's past behavior in parts of the Balkans outside of Kosovo, would you really want to bet the house on his innocence? And Milosevic isn't the only one, at least judging from recent developments involving the former president of the Serbian republic (yes, largely a symbolic position, especially under Milosevic's rule).

Gatekeeper

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Gatekeepeer,

You meant Kosovo? The evidence of an ethnic cleansing is seriously lacking, or else the court in Hagues wouldn't have such as hard time dealing with Slobodan Milsoevic.

Actually, they don't have a hard time at all.

[Chris 62]

Why do you guys fall for this?

million casualties...HA HA HA HA

Estimated true statements in my buddy's troll:

0%

[Ned]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Gatekeepeer,

You meant Kosovo? The evidence of an ethnic cleansing is seriously lacking, or else the court in Hagues wouldn't have such as hard time dealing with Slobodan Milsoevic.

It would be interesting, wouldn't it, if Milosevic was aquitted. That would leave Europe and Clinton with a lot of egg on their faces.

However, I have listened to Holbrooke even last week. He seems credible. He is proud of getting the US to support Europe in Kosovo. He truly believes even today that Milosevic was up to his usual ethnic cleansing habits once again in Kosovo.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It's worth bearing in mind that one million is the figure the anti-war movement was placing on the numbers of Iraqis who have died as a direct result of the last 10 years of sanctions.

Anyway, much as I hate to buck trends, I'll have to point out that I'm European, mildly left-wing and fully support an invasion of Iraq.

[Chris 62]

You must be a traitor Laz.

Obey France!

Submit to Germany!

You MUST comply, or your a puppet of the evil capatalist reactionary imperialist Americans!

[Ned]

The only way one million die is if Saddam is able to launch his scuds (which he denies having) into Israel or Kuwait City or Rihyad with Vx (which he says he destroyed) or Anthrax (ditto), or the like.

I also wonder whether he might have been able to smuggle Anthrax into London, New York or Rome. Athens, of course, would be an easy target.

I assume the left discounts Saddam's ability to hurt the West. However, Clinton has several times mentioned that Saddam is more likely to use his WoMD in a final showdown. This is also confirmed by Bush's many warnings to Saddam's high command not to follow any orders to use such weapons (which of course, he says he does not have).

Paiktis, given Athens notorious lack of security, are you taking any precautions. Are you stocking up on Anthrax anti-dotes, for example?

[Sandman]

There is no way that scuds armed with nerve gas or germs could possibly cause a million casualties. You'd need tens of thousands of missiles.

[Jaguar]

Re: Estimated casualties of a war on Iraq: 1 million people!

Paiktis: If there are more than 1 million casualties, I will personally mail you 100 dollars. If there aren't, then you send me 5. Are we agreed?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by loinburger
The casualties from the first war were 1/10 that estimate. How'd the estimate jump so high? Are they assuming that the US is going to nuke them or something?

Not 1/10. More like 1/4-1/3

IIRC, over 100 000 soldiers died directly from US action, never mind the civilian casualties, disease, etc.