Post here if you want to describe Kuciwalker

[giblets]

Not at all.

I'm only counting the number of children that would have been fed from products we found that Saddam sold on the black market. And assuming that none of the black market money went back into child food at 4x original cost.

We still have the fact that the UN chose to have an embargo and those deaths could have been averted.

[giblets]

The deaths prior to 2003 are his, granted - we agree.

You can't read. Without our meddling those 400,000+ children wouldn't have starved.

It establishes a killing rate than can be reasonably expected to continue throughout his tenure,

Sure, that's all we have to go by.

So, we can weigh the damage he did, for sure, against the damage we did, for sure.

But can we also include the damage he might have done? What is entirely unreasonable, is assuming that 2003+ would have been golden years for Iraqi freedom and prosperity.

The whole point in looking at the damage he did is to estimate how much damage he might have done.

[Ecofarm]

Pretty good job keeping up with the edits! Ima take a break a minute, if you don't mind.

We still have the fact that the UN chose to have an embargo and those deaths could have been averted.

The embargo did not stop him from buying food. In fact, it contained a special program for him to get it cheaply. I also do not believe it banned all Iraqi exports for much if any time.


Our "meddling" was just giving him really, really cheap food. Which he then sold at pawn prices on the black market. We can count the number of children who would not have starved if he had given that food to his people instead of selling it.

The whole point in looking at the damage he did is to estimate how much damage he might have done.

I think it is also fair to compare how many civilians he killed per year to how many we kill in trying to get rid of him and his law. How much damage he did vs. how much damage we do (per year, to have some context) in trying to rid the world of him is an important comparison too. I don't want to do more damage than Saddam did, do you? Even if we're trying to do something good for the world, that doesn't excuse damage entirely; we must save more than we take (and build a better future), or I'm out.

Perhaps I should admit that it's getting to a point of trying my soul. It might be starting to cost too much, not in US lives (which I willingly give in the name of freedom and justice, and who's sacrifice I honor beyond question) but in innocent Iraqi lives. I can only hope that someday soon the Iraqi people will stand up and make this all worthwhile. Our hopes and dreams lay with them, and in that I take faith.




We can change the world; we're morally bound.

[giblets]

The embargo did not stop him from buying food. In fact, it contained a special program for him to get it cheaply. I also do not believe it banned all Iraqi exports for much if any time.

Our "meddling" was just giving him really, really cheap food. Which he then sold at pawn prices on the black market. We can count the number of children who would not have starved if he had given that food to his people instead of selling it.

I think it is also fair to compare how many civilians he killed per year to how many we kill in trying to get rid of him and his law. How much damage he did vs. how much damage we do (per year, to have some context) in trying to rid the world of him is an important comparison too. I don't want to do more damage than Saddam did, do you?

I'm not sure if you're starting to get it or not, so I'll put it this way: if we want to determine whether the Iraq war saved lives, we have to compare the people killed by the Iraq war to an estimate of the people that would have died if we had not invaded Iraq.

Now, when you include starving children in Saddam's death total, you're essentially saying that the Iraq war saved lives because if we hadn't invaded, we would probably still be killing children with the embargo. This leaves the question of why we should have either of those things...

From our perspective, we could have chosen to continue sanctions, invade, or lift sanctions. If human life is our main metric for deciding a course of action, then we can compare the amount of people who will die following each of these potential decisions. Yes, Saddam was a bad man, but we couldn't decide his character, only how we dealt with him. Most of the deaths since the gulf war were a result of the sanctions and without them the death rate would have been far lower.

I don't know where you're coming from with these claims that the sanctions did not impact Iraq's economy. The whole reason for the oil for food program was that we refused to buy oil from Iraq unless it went towards averting a humanitarian crisis... US foreign policy following the Persian Gulf War had a profound impact on the Iraqi economy. Why do you think per capita income in Iraq dropped from $3510 in 1989 to $450 in 1996?

In short, when it comes to human life, invading may not have been the worst decision, but lifting the sanctions would have certainly been better. After we kicked Saddam Hussein's ass in the gulf war I don't see any reason to think he would have started any more wars.

You can take a reasonable pro-war stance, but you'll have to give up your nifty little "life-liberty-happiness" hierarchy.

[dannubis]

So what has US chest thumping has to do with describing Kuci ???

[Ecofarm]

After we kicked Saddam Hussein's ass in the gulf war I don't see any reason to think he would have started any more wars.

After we kicked his ass he committed genocide against 50k people (who's back we should have had) and starved 400k children by selling special-rate food.

It wasn't going to stop. We tried 17 Chapter 7 UNSCRs. Enough was enough.


We did restrict oil exports from 90-96, I was wrong about that.

[Theben]

Damn threadjacking bastards.

[giblets]

It wasn't a very good thread to begin with.

Well, okay, it was, but only the first 33 posts.

[Az]

getting this mother****er back on track.

Kuci: has brain, generally has knowledge, has entitlement complex, generally has heart in the right place.

from this thread: hangs out with terrible disgusting nerds, which is a shame.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wil Wheaton.

This. But more pedantic. Though he is smart and probably someone I'd like hanging out with (hmm... I guess kinda like Wil Wheaton)... as long as he doesn't correct my grammar

[ramseya]

Kuciwalker: Conservative teenager with entitlement issues from Utah or something, right? Also a math/physics/chemisty/finance/engineering nut but your poetry sucks.

And didn't you also go by Kucinich and skywalker for a while? If not, then I have you confused with someone annoying

[Kuciwalker]

Conservative

ish

teenager

nope

with entitlement issues

when I was 14, yeah

from Utah or something, right?

nope

Also a math/physics/chemisty/finance/engineering nut but your poetry sucks.

if I've ever posted poetry on here I might as well kill myself now

And didn't you also go by Kucinich and skywalker for a while?

yes

[Hauldren Collider]

...entitlement issues?