Support NeoGAF

[Yagharek]

The last massacre by Saddam done in the early 90s in response to an uprising. The Shi'a were encouraged to revolt by the US and so they did, expecting American help, which never came. Saddam responded by killing thousands of Shi'a.

There hadn't been a massacre like that for a decade since then, though, and things were pretty benign (as far as ruthless dictatorships go). In fact, sanctions on Iraq and the resulting poverty took a more serious toll than Saddam and his family did with their abductions and torture.

See this is what I was referring to (not that I knew about this particular case). No matter who has been in charge, Iraqis have had far too much barbaric shit to deal with. I feel sorry for them.

 

[hym]

Shit goes down whenever you station an armed military among civilians. I'm not saying it's acceptable, but what do people expect to happen?

Expectations were all over the place, many people figured we go in, blow away Saddam's 80s army of disgruntled soldiers, take out the Regime, install a new government and everyone goes home.

Estimates of a war lasting a couple months wasn't unusual.

People that actually knew Iraq of course were aware about the fragile stability that was kept in place by an oppressive regime, the sectarian violence that followed was no surprise to the intelligence community but why would they say anything when the propaganda machine decided it was time to sell people a war.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Why is this number so much greater than the rest?

Because it's most likely full of shit. The research was collected by a small number of people and funded by George Soros. With the intention of releasing it before the election in 2006 to sway public opinion. When asked to release their data to reporters, they didn't release all of it. So, it's never been 100% discredited. Which I guess is why it's still allowed to exist on a Wikipedia page.


The Lancet had published a recent study that backed away from that number and instead used another group's number.

 

[DrSlek]

The dead aren't the only victims

 

[Lamel]

The dead aren't the only victims

Those defects...oh man.

 

[iamvin22]

The saddest thing about this is how they cynically used the grief and shock of 9/11 to manipulate so many people into supporting something that had nothing to do with it. They didn't and don't give a fuck about the hundreds of thousands of deaths since, or those lost on that day - the priority was this war. It's almost scary how easily it just happened and couldn't be stopped.

This x1000. Wow dude.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Most of the Iraqi deaths are at the hands of other Iraqis.

It is true that the insurgency (spearheaded by militants and fundamentalists) resulted in more death and misery than the initial American invasion and the resulting occupation. However, the Bush administration clearly deserves a good deal of the blame for refusing to countenance any plan that did not result in absolute victory and being hailed as liberators, which is made all the more absurd once you realize the immense planning it required to get us into the war in the first place. The administration did not even seriously consider the possibility that they might have needed more troops to secure the peace after the invasion ended (especially since they took the unfortunate step of completely purging the ruling Baath party). It is unacceptable that Iraq almost devolved into civil war in large part because the administration didn't like anybody questioning their narrative.

 

[Hermii]

Just have to chime in that in order to be counted in Iraq Body counts it has to be verified by at least two independent english speaking news sources. You know how many english speaking papers there are in Iraq ? None. So its obvious that estimate is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[man of science]

I was going to post a "Mission Accomplished" picture, but the reality is too shitty to be glib about.

Post it. It' also part of history. Also post the 1984 Orwellian version they tried to pass off without the banner.

Some more numbers:
WMDs: 0
Osama Bin Ladens: Pakistan

 

[blitzcloud]

The saddest thing about this is how they cynically used the grief and shock of 9/11 to manipulate so many people into supporting something that had nothing to do with it. They didn't and don't give a fuck about the hundreds of thousands of deaths since, or those lost on that day - the priority was this war. It's almost scary how easily it just happened and couldn't be stopped.

Yeah... America seems to play by their own rules.

We have suspicion that you have weapons of mass destruction.

-what weapons?

Ours, when we step in your country

-the fuck?


And then it was like for whatever reason Saddam capture was like the biggest victory for the 9/11 grief. And when Osama was actually neutralized people were like "ah, okay. that's... good I guess"

Really weird.

 

[jimi_dini]

Wait, wait, wait. I know you're not suggesting we let that shit slide.

Wouldn't that have been the best reaction possible? "We grieve because of the 3000 people - this was a really sad day, but we won't bomb other countries as "reaction", because that would only cause more civilian deaths and we also won't declare war on terrorists, because we simply can't win that in any way - at least not with any type of weapon. If we do that, we would only cause more people to hate US and also even create more terrorists."

Instead the terrorists won.

 

[Hermii]

Post it. It' also part of history. Also post the 1984 Orwellian version they tried to pass off without the banner.

Some more numbers:
WMDs: 0
Osama Bin Ladens: Pakistan

Iraq oil reserves:

Between 143 and 350 million barrels.

 

[Hermii]

The dead aren't the only victims

I already said it in another thread but Patreus was risking court marshall for cheating on his wife ? WTF ? What about trying him for crimes against humanity.

 

[Ollie Pooch]

And then it was like for whatever reason Saddam capture was like the biggest victory for the 9/11 grief. And when Osama was actually neutralized people were like "ah, okay. that's... good I guess"

Really weird.

Yeah, that's it - it was like people have terrible memories or they're just fucking stupid. (Probably both).

 

[jaxword]

Yeah, that's it - it was like people have terrible memories or they're just fucking stupid. (Probably both).

It's that people will believe what they want to believe, and when information comes up that challenges that belief, they will fight back with the ferocity and fear of a cornered animal.

This is why we have a 2 party system. It's been this way for a while and thus change is scary and weird.

 

[YoungHav]

The thing to worry about here is, all those 100,000+ dead civilians have families, kids, friends etc. There's probably not much you can do to convince them Americans are the good guys.

In the end, they will not hate us for killing their innocent friends and family, they hate us for our freedom.

 

[Agnostic]

Are there any good website projects that have archived all of the news and war footage from Iraq?

 

[jaxword]

Are there any good website projects that have archived all of the news and war footage from Iraq?

I had one with a friend, but it's long since defunct...I still have all the videos and material, though.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Overall deaths: 176,000 – 189,000 (Costs of War Project)[35]

Call me surprised, I always thought that way more people died. Especially Iraqi civilians due to terrorist bombings, which seem to happen every day.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Yeah... America seems to play by their own rules.

We have suspicion that you have weapons of mass destruction.

-what weapons?

Ours, when we step in your country

-the fuck?


And then it was like for whatever reason Saddam capture was like the biggest victory for the 9/11 grief. And when Osama was actually neutralized people were like "ah, okay. that's... good I guess"

Really weird.

Retribution against bin Laden was...late, for sure but roughly half the country was also salty that Obama got to take the victory lap for it.

 

[Terra Firma]

Call me surprised, I always thought that way more people died. Especially Iraqi civilians due to terrorist bombings, which seem to happen every day.

It is a lot more than that. The website "Iraq Body Count" only allows for a very limited number of sources.

 

[darkwing]

Wait, wait, wait. I know you're not suggesting we let that shit slide.

because Iraq is the one responsible for 9/11?

 

[jaxword]

Retribution against bin Laden was...late, for sure but roughly half the country was also salty that Obama got to take the victory lap for it.

What's important is not the fact that The Bad Guy is dead, but that the right president gets the praise.

Not that celebrating the death of anyone should be lauded.

 

[Des0lar]

Wait, wait, wait. I know you're not suggesting we let that shit slide.

The right way to do it, was to side with the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan and going after Taliban figureheads. Make the people run to the Americans in time of need and not to the barbaric Taliban.

What happened was that now probably more people in these countries hate America than before. They still live in fear and violence, though now there isn't even any hint of a stable government.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

What's important is not the fact that The Bad Guy is dead, but that the right president gets the praise.

Not that celebrating the death of anyone should be lauded.

I'm not commenting on the moral question of celebrating death but it was really bizarre watching people who were otherwise generally very hawkish and likely enjoyed practice shooting at bin Laden target sheets suddenly feign indifference and even indignation that he was dead because reasons.

 

[jaxword]

I'm not commenting on the moral question of celebrating death but it was really bizarre watching people who were otherwise generally very hawkish and likely enjoyed practice shooting at bin Laden target sheets suddenly feign indifference and even indignation that he was dead because reasons.

That's the point I'm making. The death of a bad guy only counts if your side benefits from it. Otherwise, it's almost too bad he died.

In other words it's not America that they care about, it's THEIR America.

 

[Feroce2]

Bush has been out of office for five years. These wars are now as much Obama's as they are Bush's, especially with Obama's drone strikers at the helm.

 

[surly]

Why is this number so much greater than the rest?

Here's some info on the survey: -

The Lancet, one of the oldest scientific medical journals in the world, published two peer-reviewed studies on the effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation on the Iraqi mortality rate. The first was published in 2004; the second (by many of the same authors) in 2006. The studies estimate the number of excess deaths caused by the occupation, both direct (combatants plus non-combatants) and indirect (due to increased lawlessness, degraded infrastructure, poor healthcare, etc.).

The first survey[1] published on 29 October 2004, estimated 98,000 excess Iraqi deaths (with a range of 8,000 to 194,000, using a 95% confidence interval (CI)) from the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq to that time, or about 50% higher than the death rate prior to the invasion. The authors described this as a conservative estimate, because it excluded the extreme statistical outlier data from Falluja. If the Falluja cluster were included, the mortality estimate would increase to 150% over pre-invasion rates (95% CI: 1.6 to 4.2).

The second survey[2][3][4] published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006. The new study applied similar methods and involved surveys between May 20 and July 10, 2006.[4] More households were surveyed, allowing for a 95% confidence interval of 392,979 to 942,636 excess Iraqi deaths. 601,027 deaths (range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval) were due to violence. 31% (186,318) of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% (144,246) to others, and 46% (276,472) unknown. The causes of violent deaths were gunshot (56% or 336,575), car bomb (13% or 78,133), other explosion/ordnance (14%), air strike (13% or 78,133), accident (2% or 12,020), and unknown (2%).

The Lancet surveys are controversial because their mortality figures are higher than most other reports, including those of the Iraqi Health Ministry and the United Nations, as well as other household surveys such as the Iraq Living Conditions Survey and the Iraq Family Health Survey. The 2007 ORB survey of Iraq War casualties estimated more deaths than the Lancet, though it covered a longer period of the conflict.[5][6] Out of all the Iraqi casualty surveys so far, only the Lancet surveys and the Iraq Family Health Survey were peer-reviewed. The Lancet surveys have triggered criticism and disbelief from some journalists, governments, the Iraq Body Count project, some epidemiologists and statisticians and others, but have also been supported by some journalists, governments, epidemiologists and statisticians.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties

There's more info on Wikipedia at the link above, including criticism and counter-criticism of the survey results.

 

[theignoramus]

I know the Hussein dictatorship was an ugly thing with torture and executions going on, but do we have any figures on how many people he was killing each year on average?

How does that number compare to the toll of this illegal war?

To me it sounds like (with hindsight) a terrible situation where there was no choice between barbarity from within or barbarity from everyone else.

Terribly sad for the Iraqi people who should have the right to get on with a safe and normal life like everyone else.

he was killing the most people when the US and other western governments were backing him. (the 80s)
He went on another huge killing spree right after the Gulf War to put down a sectarian rebellion, but the US didnt oppose that at the time, because it felt a caged, defanged saddam was a better option than the leaders of that revolt.
Around the time of the Iraq war, the years before the invasion, most of the dying in Iraq was caused by the UN sanctions, not Saddam

 

[ReadingRambo]

Bush has been out of office for five years. These wars are now as much Obama's as they are Bush's, especially with Obama's drone strikers at the helm.

The Iraq war has been over. Afghanistan is winding down quickly. The drones, however, are all on Obama and he lost a ton of respect from me for it. Killing US citizens without trial with a remote-controlled airplane is pretty indefensible.