Iraqi Death Toll

[Black Dog]

Argh...can't...stop...laughing...at...KK.

No. Translation is no I do not pay for it as it is a reciprocal deal and I know now for sure that you you are not interested in information from impartial intelligence services when they do not support your cemented in place views.

You’re really like a small child who’s dying to show off a new toy. What, do you think implying that you rub shoulders with various intelligence muckity-mucks bolsters your arguments? Besides, why would I bother going to them when all you are offering is the same stuff, albeit half-digested and warmed over. ac

You do understand a bit I can see. However, you miss the point that the war was not a one reason deal. This was on of the reasons is all. Maybe a stronger one, maybe a weaker one than many of the others. That's why I find it disproportionate how you spend much of the bandwidth picking this one apart when you should be defending your point about democracy.

The reason I've spent so much time on this is because you've stated on multiple occasions that it was the main reason. (I shouldn't have to provide documentation of this, but I can if necessary).

And now you're backing away from it.

Like what? Iran taking over the Staights of Homuz? Devastated by air power. Iran sending converntional forces into Iraq? Air power. Syria marshalling Jihadists on their border to send them into Iraq? Special Forces and air power. Yes, the US has suddenly run out of Tomahawks.

Ah yes: air power. The idiot's military panacea.

I recognize Hamas as the democraticly elected government of the Palesinians. You don't? Hell, they can't support the people nor rule their land but they are the government.

...

Huh? Never said that. If they elect a jihadist organization like Hamas or hezbollah then so be it. Fair game and then they too can be on the list of the 'Axis of Evil' but, that's their people's choice.

You've actually specifically stated that the reason the U.S. invaded Iraq was to “nurture" democracy because jihadism and democracy are incompatable. A sampler:

However, it would have done little to set up a long term stoppage against radical Islam/Jihadist mentality or Islamofacisim as democracy is their enemy and they thrieve under reppressive conditions.

Anything you see in the west is designed to get a backlash that will strengthen their position. A position that is threatened by democracy in Arab and Islamic countries such as Iraq.

Taking out Saddam and helping build a democracy where people have a voice was a good thing for the people of Iraq, for the people of the region and, for the world.

The implications are clear: democracy is the antidote to jihadism. However, now you acknowledge that juhadist movements can actually benefit from democracy by turning popular support (you know, the popular support you say they have oodles of in places like Saudi Arabia) into electoral success. You know as well as I do (well, maybe you don't) that free elections in the Middle East tomorrow would result in the emergence of anti-western, radical Islamic regimes across the region. So, tell us again how democracy is jihadism's enemy.

[KrustyKidd]

You, big lovers of democracy still aren't getting it, or just being "deliberately obtuse"? It's not up to me, nor up to you, to tell what kind of government Iraq should have. Then,

- bs;

- Checkhoslovakia; Hungary; Poland; Estonia; Lithuania; and many more;

- there can't be a link for something that never existed;

- see above + perhaps you wanted (but forgot) to qualify that by "holding elections" you mean "holding elections in the country occupied by foreign troops and under their puppet government"?

- see my earlier posts;

- try working on spelling "Mesopotamia".

- probably factually incorrect and definitely irrelevant;

- see my earlier post;

Are you really unable to use the quote function? We have no idea of what you are replying to.

Trying to work with you.....

Anyhow, nowhere in that jibberish did I see the answer to the two questions of;

What type of government the Iraqis should have had so, I take it that it should be up to them to decide themselves. That's ok with you right? I mean, holding an election is not such an absurd idea to you so they can determine which way they wish to go?

and .....

How come the Iraqi people only get three years of your patience to set up a democracy where people get a say in their future when you were willing to give an evil dictator like Saddam over a dozen years to continue to flaunt UN resolutions, invade other countries, torture his own people, allow his sons to murder and rape whomever they wished and just generally enslave twenty five million people?

- see my earlier posts;

Uh .... ok. Which one? As counter proof, I offer all of my previous posts. And, to back them up, I offer all of the internet for crying out loud.

The truth is out there ....................................

[KrustyKidd]

Besides, why would I bother going to them when all you are offering is the same stuff, albeit half-digested and warmed over. ac

If you recall, you asked me if I had any source to back me up. I provided three impeccable ones with a nuetral interest. You provide nothing to support that this was not the case.

The reason I've spent so much time on this is because you've stated on multiple occasions that it was the main reason. (I shouldn't have to provide documentation of this, but I can if necessary).

Actually I could be wrong. It was a great reason but obviously not the only one as there were so many good reasons for the Iraqi invasion that it is hard to put a finger on the best one.

Ah yes: air power. The idiot's military panacea.

No, just showing how easy it is for the US to take out targets if they concentrate. You said

What's really sad, though, is that the U.S. intervention in Iraq has made military action against such rouge states less likely due to both political and practical considerations.

So who is able to raise trouble and, in what way, without being the subject of military or political action from the US?

The implications are clear: democracy is the antidote to jihadism. However, now you acknowledge that juhadist movements can actually benefit from democracy by turning popular support (you know, the popular support you say they have oodles of in places like Saudi Arabia) into electoral success. You know as well as I do (well, maybe you don't) that free elections in the Middle East tomorrow would result in the emergence of anti-western, radical Islamic regimes across the region. So, tell us again how democracy is jihadism's enemy.

Whipping a crowd into a chanting frenzy is not democracy. Glad to see you're done some actual research with a factual poster though. Do keep it up, I sense your 'new source' for your quotes is right more than you are.

[Riverwind]

Whipping a crowd into a chanting frenzy is not democracy. Glad to see you're done some actual research with a factual poster though. Do keep it up, I sense your 'new source' for your quotes is right more than you are.

A democratic palastine elected Hamas. A democratic lebanon elected hizbolla. If is rediculous to assume that democracies will elect leaders friendly to the west.

[KrustyKidd]

Whipping a crowd into a chanting frenzy is not democracy. Glad to see you're done some actual research with a factual poster though. Do keep it up, I sense your 'new source' for your quotes is right more than you are.

A democratic palastine elected Hamas. A democratic lebanon elected hizbolla. If is rediculous to assume that democracies will elect leaders friendly to the west.

Exactly. And both places are unable to provide security to their poplulation yet, Black dog believes that Iraq, Lebannon and Palestine are not democracies.

[Riverwind]

Exactly. And both places are unable to provide security to their poplulation yet, Black dog believes that Iraq, Lebannon and Palestine are not democracies.

The Iraq gov't may have been choosen democratically but it has no authority over the country that it claims to rule. Most of Iraq is under the control on local militia groups which are not democratically elected. So I do not think it reasonable to say Iraq is a democracy. A more accurate statement is 'Iraq is an anarchy that has held elections'.

[KrustyKidd]

Exactly. And both places are unable to provide security to their poplulation yet, Black dog believes that Iraq, Lebannon and Palestine are not democracies.

The Iraq gov't may have been choosen democratically but it has no authority over the country that it claims to rule. Most of Iraq is under the control on local militia groups which are not democratically elected. So I do not think it reasonable to say Iraq is a democracy. A more accurate statement is 'Iraq is an anarchy that has held elections'.

In which 65% of the people participated in. The people have chosen the government they wish. Now, it is up to the government to be the one the people chose. If they suceed, that's democracy in action. If they fail, the same. It is what the people chose.

[myata]

Here, KrustyKidd, is the roundup of our discussion:

Who has the authority to set up democracy outside their borders?

- "Nobody"

Who has invited US in to liberate Iraq and set up their government?

- ditto (no evidence of such invitation was provided)

Was it possible for people of Iraq to liberate themselves, at the right time and conditions?

- Yes (no counter argument was given to the example of a number of nations which achieved liberation without outside interference in the recent years)

Hence, US had no legitimate claim to, nor the authority, to liberate Iraq or anybody else for that matter. Whatever they did was because of their own misguided considerations and the mess that resulted is their responsibility and their alone. The time is ripe for the Bushes to pay for their little misadventure, in political terms at least, if criminal isn't yet possible (as it should be though).

This is not to say that the people of Iraq cannot have a democracy. They will have whatever they decide to have and it may take much time and many more lives to figure out. If there were to be some credit to the coalition for their part in the final liberation, so be it, they'll get their thanks in the future. But they still have to bear full responsibility for the mess they created here and now.

[KrustyKidd]

Who has the authority to set up democracy outside their borders?

- "Nobody"

Who has invited US in to liberate Iraq and set up their government?

- ditto (no evidence of such invitation was provided)

Correct.

Was it possible for people of Iraq to liberate themselves, at the right time and conditions?

- Yes (no counter argument was given to the example of a number of nations which achieved liberation without outside interference in the recent years)

Possible, however totally unlikely given the tolitarion regome that Saddam had personally built to stop such action. He was not a pushover like Cheauchescu or the Shah so figures and history of lesser police states do not hold here. The fact was, they did not period. And, they did not while there were UN resolutions in effect demanding that the regime fulfil their part of them. Hence, any speculative thought on whether or not they could, should or .... would is irrelevent.

Hence, US had no legitimate claim to, nor the authority, to liberate Iraq or anybody else for that matter.

They certainly did have the authority to take whatver means were necessary to ensure Iraq complied with the UN resolutions against them. It took regime invasion and change to do it but voila! Iraq is now in complience! Oh, look, mercy me along with that action twenty five million people were unintentionally liberated.

Sorry about that but shit happens.

Anyhow, I take it that you have no answer to the following questions as you have for the third time refused to answer them.

What type of government the Iraqis should have had so, I take it that it should be up to them to decide themselves. That's ok with you right? I mean, holding an election is not such an absurd idea to you so they can determine which way they wish to go?

and ....

How come the Iraqi people only get three years of your patience to set up a democracy where people get a say in their future when you were willing to give an evil dictator like Saddam over a dozen years to continue to flaunt UN resolutions, invade other countries, torture his own people, allow his sons to murder and rape whomever they wished and just generally enslave twenty five million people?

Please answer as you are appearing to be afraid of doing so as it would devastate your position.

In the meantime, try working with the quote feature as you tend to confuse matters by jumbling multi points you are answering into one large pargraph. That is what it was designed to avoid.

[myata]

Thanks for accepting all my arguments. As for the last question, you should really work on your reading skills. The answers were proveded (hint: begin with "not up to you and me ..." and have something like "elections under gunpoint").

Seriously, it was already explained to you by other users that token elections in unstable and insecure condition aren't reflective of the will of population and cannot be equaled to real democracy. They are simply an excuse the Bushes need to have at least some, however flumsy and incredible, justification to its absolutely unwarranted actions.

[Black Dog]

The implications are clear: democracy is the antidote to jihadism. However, now you acknowledge that juhadist movements can actually benefit from democracy by turning popular support (you know, the popular support you say they have oodles of in places like Saudi Arabia) into electoral success. You know as well as I do (well, maybe you don't) that free elections in the Middle East tomorrow would result in the emergence of anti-western, radical Islamic regimes across the region. So, tell us again how democracy is jihadism's enemy.

Whipping a crowd into a chanting frenzy is not democracy. Glad to see you're done some actual research with a factual poster though. Do keep it up, I sense your 'new source' for your quotes is right more than you are.

radical Islam/Jihadist mentality or Islamofacisim ...democracy is their enemy and they thrieve under reppressive conditions.

If they elect a jihadist organization like Hamas or hezbollah then so be it.

radical Islam/Jihadist mentality or Islamofacisim ...democracy is their enemy

If they elect a jihadist organization like Hamas or hezbollah then so be it.

A democratic palastine elected Hamas. A democratic lebanon elected hizbolla. If is rediculous to assume that democracies will elect leaders friendly to the west.

Exactly.

radical Islam/Jihadist mentality or Islamofacisim ...democracy is their enemy

To sum up: radical Islam is incompatible with democracy but if people in the region elect radical Islamic parties, well, that's just democracy.

[KrustyKidd]

To sum up: radical Islam is incompatible with democracy but if people in the region elect radical Islamic parties, well, that's just democracy.

You got it finally! And that's why Palestinians don't recieve aid from the west anymore. When they elect a government that is compatible with our ideals we will resume. In the meantime, the entire governmnet is an affront to humanity.

What is not an affront to humanity is the method they came into power by. A democratic process.

[KrustyKidd]

Myata

Thanks for accepting all my arguments.

I accepted two facts which everyone knows to be true which still leaves all of your arguments flacid. Those two facts are that democracy cannot be imposed and nobody has the right to impose it. Saddam for example imposed democracy by forcing people to vote - for him. The US created the conditions in which people voluntarily voted on their own accord so your main argument that the US imposed democracy is false.

Myata

As for the last question, you should really work on your reading skills. The answers were proveded (hint: begin with "not up to you and me ..." and have something like "elections under gunpoint").

I did and the answers did not address the questions. I offer them once more;

What type of government the Iraqis should have had so, I take it that it should be up to them to decide themselves. That's ok with you right? I mean, holding an election is not such an absurd idea to you so they can determine which way they wish to go?

and ....

How come the Iraqi people only get three years of your patience to set up a democracy where people get a say in their future when you were willing to give an evil dictator like Saddam over a dozen years to continue to flaunt UN resolutions, invade other countries, torture his own people, allow his sons to murder and rape whomever they wished and just generally enslave twenty five million people?

Myata

Seriously, it was already explained to you by other users that token elections in unstable and insecure condition aren't reflective of the will of population and cannot be equaled to real democracy.

65% of eligible voters participate under threat of death (a number that we in the west don't see participating at the polls) and you call that token? No wonder your arguments are screwed up. I also showed that control and security (while desirable) do not go hand in hand with democracy either.

Myata

They are simply an excuse the Bushes need to have at least some, however flumsy and incredible, justification to its absolutely unwarranted actions.

1441 gave them enough warrent to take action and Saddam was a threat to regional security. Reason enough.

[myata]

Discussion on establishment of democracy is now going in two threads (this and 1441), so I'll continue with the latter.

[Black Dog]

You got it finally! And that's why Palestinians don't recieve aid from the west anymore. When they elect a government that is compatible with our ideals we will resume. In the meantime, the entire governmnet is an affront to humanity.

What is not an affront to humanity is the method they came into power by. A democratic process.

Uh...no. That was most definitely not your argument. You said, on multiple occassions, that democracy is the antidote to radical Islam/jihadism because it offers people choice.

To create a democracy within the center of the region where people can decide their own future is counter to the culture the Jihadists wish which is control of every aspect from shitting to how you dress.

-KK Oct 1 2006

That's pretty unequivocal: "democracy...counter to the culture of the jihadists." The implicatiosn are clear: given a choice, they won't choose the repressive rule of the jihadis. But they can. And they do. You can splutter about "western aid", but that's beside the point.

[KrustyKidd]

You said, on multiple occassions, that democracy is the antidote to radical Islam/jihadism because it offers people choice

And, I still stand by that. As a matter of fact, today in the paper there was an article about how Hamas is stepping down to share power with the PA. Seems the people's representatives know that Jihadism is not the way of the future once they have an outlet of course. Seems on reflection, logic takes over emotion.