John McCain's photo op kills 21 people - Page 7 - New England Patriots Forums

Fogbuster · 04-07-2007, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Well, Fog, I just went over the first three of your links, and got these totals on the high end:

"Domecides" -
314,000 apart from killings in specific wars, high end estimate, all sources, EXCEPT these unnamed sources:
Unnamed "Human Rights Groups" who say up to 500K
Unnamed "Iraqi Politicians" who say up to 1M
(314,000 is the total of non-war deaths claimed in the third, somewhat extremist link, almost entirely unsourced. It also notes 200,000 marsh Arabs "killed or made homeless," with no breakdown. Nobody else seems to have one either.)

War deaths -
Including people killed by the US/UK, earlier 1991 invasion, people killed by Iran, people killed after Saddam's death, all of which are Saddam's fault:

2.55 M, highest estimate.

Using attributed sources contained in your links, then, your "10 million" figure is off by an order of magnitude using conventional means of assessing "killings" by a regime, even if we take the actual number to be a single quote in a single article, rather than the apparent concensus number of about 300K.

Using the high estmate of deaths in wars - not a conventional measure of "killings by a regime" - AND using the almost certainly wrong high estimate of 2.55M war deaths, you are still off by almost triple.

You can fish through the last 3 links and specify for me me what led you to believe that "10 million" is a good number to use for Saddam's regime. From what I can tell thus far, even the most fantastic reaches get you to a third or so of that number.

Anyway, I'm thinking the honest way to do this is to say a range of non-war deaths, and a range of war deaths. We can then break down the war deaths, if you like, for the benefit of anybody who believes that dropping the bomb which kills someone has something to do with that person's death.

PFnV

To be honest with you PFnV, Saddam was a disease that needed removal. We can dance around forever on final tabulated totals, and what constitutes a "domesticide killing" and what constitutes a "war killing", but for me, Saddam was a brutal unrepentant thug who told the world to sod off. He got away with it for many years -- until 9/11. At that point all bets were off. He was given the chance to live on if he just relinquished his dictatorship, but he decided to fight. He lost. It's over.

Now we need to convince his followers and wanna bes that it's over for them as well. And we will.

//

PatsFanInVa · 04-07-2007, 06:53 PM

Fog, I'm certainly not going to defend Saddam. He was what he was. But the thing is, he also wasn't what he wasn't.

My only point here is, let's all be careful with numbers. The problem is when we make them meaningless, we all suffer.

I do agree with you that "all bets were off" after 9/11; basically, the momentum from 9/11 got us into Afghanistan (which we really pretty much had to do and had the right to do,) and Iraq (given what we know, I do not agree that we should have gone in.) That momentum for a nationalist, adventurist agenda seems to have dissapated to an extent. Again, it is what it is. I don't want to get into the right and the wrong of the war. That's a whole nother kettle of fish.

Careful with the numbers. That's all I'm saying here. When I run across the really reckless stuff, I do take the time to set it right... stands to reason other people would too.

PFnV

Fogbuster · 04-08-2007, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsFanInVa

Fog, I'm certainly not going to defend Saddam. He was what he was. But the thing is, he also wasn't what he wasn't.

My only point here is, let's all be careful with numbers. The problem is when we make them meaningless, we all suffer.

I do agree with you that "all bets were off" after 9/11; basically, the momentum from 9/11 got us into Afghanistan (which we really pretty much had to do and had the right to do,) and Iraq (given what we know, I do not agree that we should have gone in.) That momentum for a nationalist, adventurist agenda seems to have dissapated to an extent. Again, it is what it is. I don't want to get into the right and the wrong of the war. That's a whole nother kettle of fish.

Careful with the numbers. That's all I'm saying here. When I run across the really reckless stuff, I do take the time to set it right... stands to reason other people would too.

PFnV

I gotcha with the care on my figures thing. It's a solid point. I do think for most people the difference between 3 million killed and 10 million killed is relatively insignificant, but checking one's facts before posting them is always a wise idea. Thanks for the exchange.

All_Around_Brown · 04-08-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fogbuster

I gotcha with the care on my figures thing. It's a solid point. I do think for most people the difference between 3 million killed and 10 million killed is relatively insignificant, but checking one's facts before posting them is always a wise idea. Thanks for the exchange.

Hey, you've come along way from calling him a scumbag and attacking him for pointing out how full of crap you are. I give you credit for finally accepting your flaw.

Now, would you send the same respect my way for being among those to call you on your rubbish?

Your figures are inflated for an obvious reason. You want to justify the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. I understand how frustrated neo-cons such as you must be to watch your commander in chief lose a war and your party basically handcuffed to that wars fate, but for the other 60+% of us, we're outraged.

Understand that is why Im touchy about it...because deception after deception has fostered your opinion and you perpetuate them, while objectivity and facts have a way of coming to light faster with simple self education.

Face it. Bush lied to you then, and he lies to you now. You haven't the stomach to owe up to it, though.

So Happy Freaking Easter scumbag.