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

[KrazyHorse]

There will probably be 1000 Iraqi civilian casaulties or less

1000 is more ridiculous than 1 million is.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo



If you really believe that after their period of autonomy, after they're given guns to liberate their comrades to the South, they'd be willing to hand them back in and once more be subject to the tyranny of Baghdad, you're crazy!

If they don't defend themselves, they'll be an extremely bad situation, as an ethnic and religions minority in Iraq. They'd be in a much worse situation than they currently are in.

Ramo, I don't understand your thinking. They will be a part of the coalition government. They will not be its enemy.

In the short term, nothing at all will change in Kurdistan save for the fact that its leaders will have a voice at the national level. What happens after that is clearly subject to peaceful negotiation. I would suspect that the Kurd army will become the new Iraqi army - in part. They will join with the 5000 ex pats now being trained by the US and with whatever units the Shi'ites can raise.

Clearly Iraq has at least three different peoples within its borders. To some extent, this require autonomy. But I fail to see why Iraq should splinter into three different nations from day one.

[Kramerman]

Gatekeeper
Mostly in agreence with your points

All of you are wrong.

But all of you are right.

But if all of you are wrong, how can you all be right? Debate that for a while.

Oh wait...you are....

I see nothing wrong with the speculation going on in this thread. Just a bunch of people arguing fairly logical arguements on all sides... helps everyone gain new ideas and brings us all closer to a more objective perspective on the whole matter.

Kman

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Frogger

There will probably be 1000 Iraqi civilian casaulties or less

1000 is more ridiculous than 1 million is.

1000 is far more likely than 1 million . You know how hard it is to kill 1 MILLION people? We humans are quite resiliant.

Through 6 years of methodical killing, Hitler killed only 7 times this number of Jews (7 million). Gulf War II will last no where near this long, and civilians will only die by accident, so their deaths will be sporadic and random, instead of being targeted and exterminated purposefully like the jews.

(Im not counting the Iraqi civilians that take up arms against the US, mind you, once they do this, they are no longer innocent civilians in my eyes)

[Lefty Scaevola]

I do not believe that "innocent" is a correct synonym for "noncombatant", any more than 'guilty' is a synonym for 'combatant'.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kramerman
1000 is far more likely than 1 million . You know how hard it is to kill 1 MILLION people? We humans are quite resiliant.

2 million Rwandans died really quick.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


2 million Rwandans died really quick.

I thought it was 500,000? The Tutsi were also methodically masacred and executed by the Hutu... Human resiliance is kinda nullified when faced by a firing squad (or however they were murdered). I see no parallel between the ethnic violence and preying on civilians in Rwanda and any possible Gulf War II conflict. And if there is, then that just goes to show how extreme the civilian deaths must be in order to get even half-way to the 1 million mark.

[KrazyHorse]

800 000

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper


May I ask what you're talking about? I was reacting to your one-dimensional...

...blah blah blah...

....for a person who may argue ineffectively (or effectively) in the end using their own words and thoughts than for a person who merely links to something else or quotes something all the time and rarely adds anything else of substance to the argument.

Gatekeeper

Gee whiz (hey the style police will get me for that one). You do get tetchy sometimes.

I apologise for the towel head remark - it was rather inflammatory, and to be honest, was supposed to be.

Anyway, for the rest I suppose you think it is incumbent on me and other posters to take ridiculous arguments seriously.

Did you read the article I linked to? Come up with some answers to it instead of making a big deal out of mere possibilities (that's the point I was making, which seems obvious enough). Of course it is possible that any of the events you describe might happen, but that's not a compelling argument. What you need to show is that they are likely to happen, which you most certainly did not. Until you do that it's not worth responding. After all, I might grow horns or win the lottery, but I'm not going to plan my life around those possibilities.

And if you want to trade insults, it's fine with me - nothing like a good slanging match sometimes - your mother was a hamster!.

And as for quoting others, I shall do as I please. Indeed as Socrates once remarked, "What if someone were to say to himself, 'A cow is a horse'?"

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kramerman


I thought it was 500,000? The Tutsi were also methodically masacred and executed by the Hutu... Human resiliance is kinda nullified when faced by a firing squad (or however they were murdered). I see no parallel between the ethnic violence and preying on civilians in Rwanda and any possible Gulf War II conflict. And if there is, then that just goes to show how extreme the civilian deaths must be in order to get even half-way to the 1 million mark.

Keep in mind that casualties aren't just those killed in combat/by ordinance:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/africa/06/21/congo.killing.fields/

Wars create humanitarian crises, especially in underdeveloped nations. The deaths in the war itself will pale next to those who die (and have died, actually) from the situation the war produces in the country.

[Ramo]

Ramo, I don't understand your thinking. They will be a part of the coalition government. They will not be its enemy.

Yes, they'll be in a coalition gov't... Despite being in the overwhelming minority.

I still don't see why you think they'll accept subjagation to Baghdad, considering the recent history of ethnic cleansing of Kurds in all countries in the region.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo


Yes, they'll be in a coalition gov't... Despite being in the overwhelming minority.

I still don't see why you think they'll accept subjagation to Baghdad, considering the recent history of ethnic cleansing of Kurds in all countries in the region.

Ramo, the simple solution to states that are composed of multiple ethnic groups or clearly divergent interests is a federal form of govenment.

But I do agree, that if the three or four main ethnic groups in Iraq cannot get along, they may have to divide the country up ala India and Pakistan. But that turned into a real bloodbath, didn't it?

[Ramo]

A federal gov't can't stop overwhelming force. The Kurds aren't simply a minority, but comprise something like 10% of the population.

The best solution is for us to have the balls to say "Kurdiastan is independent" and back up those words against Iraq and Turkey. That doesn't even require initial military force as Saddam already leaves the North alone due to the no-fly zones.

We either support liberty and justice or we don't. This is our test. But it is one we have failed thus far, and will undoubtedly continue to fail.