Was all this gang violence in Iraq happening when Saddam was in power?

[BRUCE]

someone posted the numbers here, # of deaths per year under saddam and under our rule.  

more people die now.

This post is a complete and utter lie.

Let's consider the real information at hand, guys:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1008

1980-1988
Some 1.7m died on both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, started by Saddam.

1987-1989
At least 100,000 Kurds were slaughtered in the so-called Anfal campaign. Some were gassed, others cast alive into


Care to review your statement, Rob?

I haven't even got started on this yet.

[240 is Back]

peace will only come under a dictatorship, not a democracy.  the people aren't trained for that.

[tu_holmes]

No? Then what is this?

Get a grip.

You truly think a group of people with no concept of democracy will understand what it's all about?

They are proving every day that they do not... Religious factions boycotting, people being killed by their own countrymen in the streets... They are a society who's ideals are not in line with yours or mine and as such will not get it for probably another 500 years.

I don't know if the removal of Saddam was worth 500 years of death and destruction in a country who basically had zero crime before.

[ieffinhatecardio]

What the hell is "The Cage"?

[BRUCE]

You truly think a group of people with no concept of democracy will understand what it's all about?

They are proving every day that they do not... Religious factions boycotting, people being killed by their own countrymen in the streets... They are a society who's ideals are not in line with yours or mine and as such will not get it for probably another 500 years.

I don't know if the removal of Saddam was worth 500 years of death and destruction in a country who basically had zero crime before.

You must have missed the elections held in Iraq, and the millions that turned out (even in the face of terror) and bravely voted for this democracy.

Your 500 year statement is a fantasy, let's try and bring you back to earth.

[BRUCE]

What the hell is "The Cage"?

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=127624.0

Also known as 'The Pit'.

[tu_holmes]

This post is a complete and utter lie.

Let's consider the real information at hand, guys:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1008

1980-1988
Some 1.7m died on both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, started by Saddam.

1987-1989
At least 100,000 Kurds were slaughtered in the so-called Anfal campaign. Some were gassed, others cast alive into


Care to review your statement, Rob?

I haven't even got started on this yet.

So you're saying that death during a war doesn't count?

Yes, Saddam slaughtered people, but since let's say 1995 how many people have been killed by Saddam? How many have been killed since he was removed?

I mean, you can say we killed millions during the civil war, but we don't count that against murders committed daily today... It's all killing yes, and it's bad, but you're comparing completely different times. If that's the case, we could talk about how many people were killed due to being sent to Vietnam  or how many US Soldiers are killed by being in Iraq...

If you don't see the correlation great... because I don't see it in your post either.

[240 is Back]

This post is a complete and utter lie.

Let's consider the real information at hand, guys:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=1008

1980-1988
Some 1.7m died on both sides during the Iran-Iraq war, started by Saddam.

1987-1989
At least 100,000 Kurds were slaughtered in the so-called Anfal campaign. Some were gassed, others cast alive into


Care to review your statement, Rob?

I haven't even got started on this yet.

Of course, you're gonna skew the numbers if you throw in the # killed while iraq was IN A WAR WITH IRAN.

At the moment, Iraq isn't in a war with anyone.  They have a democratically elected govt and they even have the US there to help them out.   If you remove the US and let iran open up on them, the numbers would be staggering.

Take a year when there wasn't war in iraq.  1995.  1996.  1997.  1998. 1999. 2000.   how many people were killed then?  Then, look at 2003 to 2007.  Estimates range from 150k (UN) to 655k (JH).

So if you really want to win this argument, then by all means, throw in nnumbers from a brutal war with their bordered neighbor.  or, if you want to compare apples with apples, choose a more recent year and one in which they weren't engaged in war.

[ieffinhatecardio]

Sorry I asked.

Are the Iraqis better now, years after Hussein was toppled or were they better during his reign? Fair question considering the current state of Iraq.

[BRUCE]

So you're saying that death during a war doesn't count?

Yes, Saddam slaughtered people, but since let's say 1995 how many people have been killed by Saddam? How many have been killed since he was removed?

I mean, you can say we killed millions during the civil war, but we don't count that against murders committed daily today... It's all killing yes, and it's bad, but you're comparing completely different times. If that's the case, we could talk about how many people were killed due to being sent to Vietnam  or how many US Soldiers are killed by being in Iraq...

If you don't see the correlation great... because I don't see it in your post either.

You're moronic beyond belief.  I show you the facts - that far more people were dying under Saddams reign - and you rant on about the civil war and Vietnam.  Unbelievable, you'll buy into anything you want.

[tu_holmes]

You must have missed the elections held in Iraq, and the millions that turned out (even in the face of terror) and bravely voted for this democracy.

Your 500 year statement is a fantasy, let's try and bring you back to earth.

Haha... you think those elections were a statement? They still BARELY have a working government... those elections were for show... plain and simple.

I think it's you who need a dose of reality... the way they treat their own women is very much as Europe did 500 years ago... The way they allow their religion to cause mass murder is the way Europe was 500 years ago.

I'm afraid that in this case, you are delusional my friend... I won't be alive to see it, but if I had a time machine I would guarantee you that they, without a ruthless dictator, will be fighting internally for at least the next 500 years.

[ieffinhatecardio]

What the hell does the Iran/Iraq War have to do with this? 

[tu_holmes]

You're moronic beyond belief.  I show you the facts - that far more people were dying under Saddams reign - and you rant on about the civil war and Vietnam.  Unbelievable, you'll buy into anything you want.

I'm a moron? You are the one bringing up wars to skew numbers... I merely responded in kind.

Wow... when someone posts something that shows your bias, they're a moron... Wow... good thing I don't sit around worry about what you think of me.

[BRUCE]

Of course, you're gonna skew the numbers if you throw in the # killed while iraq was IN A WAR WITH IRAN.

At the moment, Iraq isn't in a war with anyone.  They have a democratically elected govt and they even have the US there to help them out.   If you remove the US and let iran open up on them, the numbers would be staggering.

Take a year when there wasn't war in iraq.  1995.  1996.  1997.  1998. 1999. 2000.   how many people were killed then?  Then, look at 2003 to 2007.  Estimates range from 150k (UN) to 655k (JH).

So if you really want to win this argument, then by all means, throw in nnumbers from a brutal war with their bordered neighbor.  or, if you want to compare apples with apples, choose a more recent year and one in which they weren't engaged in war.

You're the fool that said more have died in this current conflict than during Saddam's reign.  You were wrong, way wrong, accept that.

And that you can try and pin the deaths of innocent Iraqis at the hands of terrorists on Americans is atrocious.  The truth is, the majority of people that are dying in Iraq are being killed by terror attacks, whose side are you on?

[tu_holmes]

What the hell does the Iran/Iraq War have to do with this? 

Nothing... Oh... and if you really want to bring it up... Who enable Saddam to kill so many during that time.

Oh right... the US... so does that mean that WE are responsible for those deaths as well? Not in Bruce's mind obviously...

By his rationale though, we are... and so that should be added to our tally in Iraq as well.

[240 is Back]

You're moronic beyond belief.  I show you the facts - that far more people were dying under Saddams reign - and you rant on about the civil war and Vietnam.  Unbelievable, you'll buy into anything you want.

you're missing the point about comparing wartime to peacetime stats.

Iraq isn't fighting a war at the moment.   If they WERE, holy shit, the death rates would be astronomical.

[BRUCE]

you're missing the point about comparing wartime to peacetime stats.

Iraq isn't fighting a war at the moment.   If they WERE, holy shit, the death rates would be astronomical.

Oh, god.  You're all getting worse and worse.  I showed you the numbers and you chose to close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and pretend that Saddam's regime was better for Iraq than this struggling democracy.

Good luck with that - let me know when this thread is done if someone wants to take me on in reasonable debate on this issue.

[tu_holmes]

You're the fool that said more have died in this current conflict than during Saddam's reign.  You were wrong, way wrong, accept that.

And that you can try and pin the deaths of innocent Iraqis at the hands of terrorists on Americans is atrocious.  The truth is, the majority of people that are dying in Iraq are being killed by terror attacks, whose side are you on?

Who's side am I on?

You have completely shown yourself to be completely unthinking... Look at my posts Bruce... I'm on the side of the AMERICANS... not the Iraqi's... I'm on the side of the troops... to bring them home.

I'm not on the side of controlling oil, or Iraqi freedom... I'm not on the side of freeing other countries from people that they should free themselves of.

The real question is whose side are YOU on... you're the one speaking like Iraq is so great... I know it sucks. If you like it... feel free to move there.

Who's pinning deaths on Americans... I'm saying that this COUNTRY... you, me, all of us are partially responsible for what has happened in that country... the problem is, like many, you don't seem to want to accept your responsibility. Where I have.

[240 is Back]

You're the fool that said more have died in this current conflict than during Saddam's reign.  You were wrong, way wrong, accept that.

And that you can try and pin the deaths of innocent Iraqis at the hands of terrorists on Americans is atrocious.  The truth is, the majority of people that are dying in Iraq are being killed by terror attacks, whose side are you on?

Wow, your emotinoal involvement in this is reducing you to namecalling and ignoring facts.

Saddam had what, 23 years to kill the 1.8 million you mentioned.

We've been there 4 years, and it's 150k confirmed to 655k estimated.

AND, you're ignoring the fact that many of saddam's folks died in a war with a bordered strong neighbor.

Finally, you're taking any attack on the belief they can use democracy, as a pat on saddam's back.  Don't do that.  Making that stretch is just terribly assumptive and outright ugly.

[tu_holmes]

Oh, god.  You're all getting worse and worse.  I showed you the numbers and you chose to close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears, and pretend that Saddam's regime was better for Iraq than this struggling democracy.

Good luck with that - let me know when this thread is done if someone wants to take me on in reasonable debate on this issue.

Now we're worse... feel free to respond to my post about how we enable Saddam during that Iran/Iraq war...

Oh right... you'll see we did no such thing... those are on his head, not ours... nevermind... when you feel like spouting a different line of rhetoric, we'll be here.

[ieffinhatecardio]

Nothing... Oh... and if you really want to bring it up... Who enable Saddam to kill so many during that time.

Oh right... the US... so does that mean that WE are responsible for those deaths as well? Not in Bruce's mind obviously...

By his rationale though, we are... and so that should be added to our tally in Iraq as well.

It's bruce, take what he posts for what it's worth.

By the way, I love "The Cage". LOL
A goofier name couldn't be chosen for such and endeavor.

I'm still kind of giggling about the Iran/Iraq War thing. 

Good luck with that - let me know when this thread is done if someone wants to take me on in reasonable debate on this issue.

Yes, about as reasonable as throwing 1.7 million deaths from the Iran/Iraq War into the mix. LOL 

[240 is Back]

Yes, about as reasonable as throwing 1.7 million deaths from the Iran/Iraq War into the mix. LOL 

He stopped debating once we mentioned this was skewing his numbers in a major way.

I thought the debate was about "gang violence in Iraq", then he throws in an external enemy which killed over 1.7 million and adds those numbers in.

[tu_holmes]

He stopped debating once we mentioned this was skewing his numbers in a major way.

I thought the debate was about "gang violence in Iraq", then he throws in an external enemy which killed over 1.7 million and adds those numbers in.

Some people will never let rationale thinking be involved...

[ieffinhatecardio]

He stopped debating once we mentioned this was skewing his numbers in a major way.

I thought the debate was about "gang violence in Iraq", then he throws in an external enemy which killed over 1.7 million and adds those numbers in.

Well, considering that's the name of the thread and the debate is about 40+ people killed everyday by "GANGS" you might figure that he might have realized bringing a War might not have been the correct thing to do.

Good thing you didn't go into "The Cage" with him. 

Come on, let's go to battle in "The Cage".

[240 is Back]

what is the cage?  i completely missed that thing.  like a 'challenge someone to a debate on a topic' thing?