Remember they were existing under a murderous dictator, with a huge army and a loyal, pervasive secret police. There wasn't much chance of an indigenous revolution. ...unlike Iran.
600,000...thats an average of about 500 violent deaths per day. thats a huge stretch. A realistic cap on the numbers would be 80,000-100,000. Even that is way beyond bad, even in the ME
Horsehocky, The Soviet Bloc countries broke free under Gorbachev and Yeltsin, who were so compliant with the peoples revolution you'd swear they were CIA operatives. Iraqi Shiites might have mustered an Iranian backed revolt, they were trying in the Basra region, but it would have been a bloody mess.
Bloody mess is exactly how I'd describe it right now..... The incompetence of how we've executed our invasion of Iraq is staggering. Forget about the reasons for invasion - Rumsfeld should be put in a public stockade for his "dancing in the streets" predictions and utter failure to plan for nation building. We've created a much bigger problem than a two-bit dictator, and we have no plan for fixing our mistakes. The Republicans don't dare to say anything than "stay the course," because otherwise it means admitting their mistakes which is political suicide. Meanwhile, the Democrats are so impotent that even political Viagra couldn't cure them. Finally, no third party has the resources necessary to research and put together an alternative plan. Basically, we're screwed unless the Democrats get a spine or the Republicans get a conscience.
There is no way 655,000 people have died as a result of the invasion ~ I would put the number between 100,000 and 200,000 lives lost. A staggering amount of needless death IMHO.
What is silly is denying the fact that two of the three main groups in Iraq (Shiites and Kurds) had continuously asked for Saddam's removal, and that the third group which enjoyed his patronage (the Sunnis) was unlikely to have ever asked for it. Further to act as if we've been killing 'all the rest of their herd' etc is a vast mistake.
Do any of you know for sure how many of these deaths came as a direct result of a US weapon? Ooops. I forgot, you don't like to look at any culprits other than the "Bush Invasion."
My point exactly. Many of the deaths were listed to have been caused by car bombs. That seems to be the responsibility of the bad guys.
You mean the bad guys that we let out of the asylum and now can't control (even though we were legally obligated to provide security under the geneva convention as an occupier)........remind me how many car bombs per day were there during the prior regime? Some of you guys have trouble grasping it, but it's a well known legal principle, that even though people are responsible for their own actions, one who voluntarily assumes responsibilty over them or places them in a state of danger in a reckless or negligent or willfully blind fashion can be held accountable for it. That's easy. Even Saddam's most murderous enterprise, the deliberate bloodletting of the Kurds, only generated an estimated 150,000 or so deaths. If the 650,000 figure is anywhere near accurate....wow.
Sure. Anything to absolve people who blow cars up to kill other people. One would then have to assume (using your well documented legal principle) that any government of the Palestinians would be responsible for any deaths their citizens cause, right? Or does this legal principle only apply to the United States?
Nobody is absolving them, that is what I just explained to you in detail. I will explain it again. Would you be legally culpable if you knowingly abandoned your child by the side of a dangerous freeway and a drunk driver swerved off the road and killed them? Your answer is no, my answer is yes, and that is the answer that our legal system has used for thousands of years. That does not mean that the drunk driver is not also culpable. Why you assume this I do not know. Are you asking me if Hamas, the government of Palestine, is responsible for deaths their citizens cause? Cause if so the answer is yes, they do bear responsibility, them being terrorists and such.
The Shah's loyal, pervasive secret police Information on the Iranian Imperial Guard with links to information on the huge Imperial Iranian Army
I agree. Bush and company have wildly underestimated the number of dead Iraqis because of the invasion and occupation, but I think this estimate goes the other way. I expect the truth to be somewhere in the middle of the two figures. That would still be a shockingly high figure, and even more than your own estimate, KC. Keep D&D Civil.
The Shiites certainly haven't shown they were ready for Saddam's removal, nor have they expressed in recent times a desire for us to help them achieve the removal of Saddam. You can say that they would have accepted whatever means were necessary but the current situation shows us that that just isn't the case.
I'm not saying that we aren't responsible in any way. I take issue with the thread title "655,000 Dead in Iraq since Bush Invasion" which places all of the blame on the US and none with the people who may be doing the large portion of the indiscriminate killing. As far as the Hamas example, I was asking if ANY government of the Palestinians would be responsible for those crimes. I only ask because often the killing done by Palestinians goes excused due to various reasons and we are encouraged to give the government money despite the fact that they've failed to reasonably care for their "children." I see we agree on this issue (at least so far as Hamas is conerned; I don't wish to put words in your mouth).
I don't want to believe that it is true, but I've seen two professional poling people on the air who have seen the report and both of them said that they can find no fault with the methodology involved, and the sample size is sufficient for a legitimate estimate. It is admirable to want to find common ground and choose the path of moderation. But until I see someone who can comment legitimately on why this estimate is incorrect I find no reason to doubt. On the other hand I have several times seen competent professionals explain why the White House estimates are nothing but fantasies and so the other number, the official estimate, is nonsensical. I appreciate the idea of splitting the difference, but in this case I don’t think it is warranted or prudent.
It doesn't show any such thing. The claim that they didn't want help removing Saddam is revisionist and absurd. As for the number itself, the Lancet published an equally gross overestimate previously and there was a vast enumerated criticism of their conclusion at that time. I expect to see no less as soon as enough time has passed for the study to be more closely examined.
