Comment by Great Dane on September 12, 2011 at 11:27am

Yeah - that surely provides a different perspective. The tragedy behind those figures is horrible!

Comment by Arcus on September 12, 2011 at 11:53am

And are there really any 'Military Civilians'..?

A better simile would be "Civilians killed in Muslim countries by Christian fundamentalist terror attacks".

 

Comment by Albert Bakker on September 12, 2011 at 11:58am

Yes, and then put next to that a bar about 4 times as high that represents only children younger than five year who, according to Unicef, were murdered as a direct consequence of the sanctions regime, to which the Clinton administration responded, not disputing the number, by mouth of Madeleine Albright that it was a price the US considered worth paying. 

Shortly after this brazen honesty appeared to cause a bit of unexpected disapproval in public opinion the blame was appropriately shifted to Saddam Hussein.

Comment by Arcus on September 12, 2011 at 4:33pm

Also, you forgot a few incidents..

@Albert: So, the US shouldn't embargo or invade any country? Staying out tin-pot dictators' way has it's price too; Absolute neutrality makes you look bad.

Comment by Sassan K. on September 12, 2011 at 7:45pm

I hope you know that those statistics for the death total in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are mostly the result of non-U.S. inflicted deaths - most of them from terrorists in an attempt to attack American troops, other sectarian groups, and other misc. deaths. The fact is that the terrorists don't care how many civilians they kill - and they will kill a group of children that are getting candy from a soldier if they feel they have the remote possibility of killing the troop. In addition, the terrorists use human shields.

Now, let me ask you - what would the alternative have been if we had allowed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to remain in power? How many people would have died under their brutal rule of oppression, terror, mass executions, subversion of sanctions (Saddam Hussein alone was fraudulently obtaining money from the oil-for-food program which was intended to help the Iraqi people - as a result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were dying each year alone) - so the fact that there are no more sanctions alone means that the total sheer number of civilian deaths in Iraq would have been greater than our sacrifice in assisting the liberation of these two nations in a hope that there will be a better and hopefully somewhat Democratic transition for these two nations. In addition, the "Arab Spring" most likely would not have taken place without the removal of Saddam as this removed a "psyche" of the "untouchable" tyrants - Ghaddafi alone gave him his nuclear program after we caught Saddam in a hole which as a result made him appear weak and subsequently the Libyan opposition started to rise. Imagine if Ghaddafi had nuclear weapons...does one question for a second that he would have used them on his own people?

Comment by Sassan K. on September 12, 2011 at 7:48pm

I hope you know that those statistics for the death total in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are mostly the result of non-U.S. inflicted deaths - most of them from terrorists in an attempt to attack American troops, other sectarian groups, and other misc. deaths. The fact is that the terrorists don't care how many civilians they kill - and they will kill a group of children that are getting candy from a soldier if they feel they have the remote possibility of killing the troop. In addition, the terrorists use human shields.

Now, let me ask you - what would the alternative have been if we had allowed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to remain in power? How many people would have died under their brutal rule of oppression, terror, mass executions, subversion of sanctions (Saddam Hussein alone was fraudulently obtaining money from the oil-for-food program which was intended to help the Iraqi people - as a result, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were dying each year alone) - so the fact that there are no more sanctions alone means that the total sheer number of civilian deaths in Iraq would have been greater without our sacrifice in assisting the liberation of these two nations in a hope that there will be a better and hopefully somewhat Democratic transition for these two nations. In addition, the "Arab Spring" most likely would not have taken place without the removal of Saddam as this removed a "psyche" of the "untouchable" tyrants - Ghaddafi alone gave him his nuclear program after we caught Saddam in a hole which as a result made him appear weak and subsequently the Libyan opposition started to rise. Imagine if Ghaddafi had nuclear weapons...does one question for a second that he would have used them on his own people?

Comment by Sassan K. on September 12, 2011 at 7:51pm

Ok, it double posted as I made a small edit and it usually would allow me to delete my previous comment but now I don't see an area for deleting my previous comment in-lieu to my update.

Comment by justin gold on September 12, 2011 at 8:32pm

I hope you know that those statistics for the death total in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are mostly the result of non-U.S. inflicted deaths

Sassan, that's quite possibly one of the stupidest comments I've ever heard,most of  the civilians that died was  as a direct result of the U.S and others invading those countries. 

 

Comment by Albert Bakker on September 13, 2011 at 1:32am

The US has a sordid history supporting tin pot dictators and still does.

If the US were staying out of tin pot dictators way, the US and it's allies (except Israel, which supported Khomeini exclusively) wouldn't have supported Saddam Hussein, who came to power in a US backed coup in the first place, and delivered him the weapons to carry out the Anfal campaign with.

It has to be said that at the time the DIA/ CIA quickly pinpointed the blame for the infamous poison gas attacks on Halabja (1988) on the Iranians, for whats seems to be reasons of political expedience: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/17/opinion/17iht-edjoost_ed3_.html

But then the US supported both sides of the Iran Iraq war. My country (NL) was one of the biggest suppliers of the precursor material to fabricate the gas with (export permits delivered, but fortunately our government found a scapegoat) to the Hussein regime.

During the cold war the game was pretty much who could afford to buy the allegiance of most dictators and not only with money. The US did never suffer from a dictator gap compared to the Evil Empire.

Comment by Unseen on September 13, 2011 at 2:41am

Are we to believe a chart from people who can't even spell "Afghanistan"?

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

  

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 17 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service