Have we EVER had a President "Dave"?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

Ahhh…

Then we also need to add in the what-if deaths if Saddam’s reign had been left unchecked. Again starting with the trivial: how many people per year was he killing?

That’s a legitimate question. I’ll see if I can track it down again, but I’ve seen the numbers before (we can limit it to the past decade, I think, as a reasonable predictor of what he’d do over the next decade), and it was nowhere near the number of people that died in the war. If a civil war breaks out in Iraq, Hussein will be dwarfed; but we can set that aside for now.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Okay, I’m having trouble tracking down those numbers. I’m finding that war estimates from last year totalled about 100,000 Iraqis killed by the invasion, and that over the course of Hussein’s bloody career, about 250,000 people were murdered by him. I’m not finding something that tracks his behavior over the past decade or so–the period that I consider relevant.

I did, however, find a pretty relevant article at Human Rights Watch that discusses the exact issues we’re talking about here. From the section "The level of killing:

In considering the criteria that would justify humanitarian intervention, the most important, as noted, is the level of killing: was genocide or comparable mass slaughter underway or imminent? Brutal as Saddam Hussein’s reign had been, the scope of the Iraqi government’s killing in March 2003 was not of the exceptional and dire magnitude that would justify humanitarian intervention. We have no illusions about Saddam Hussein’s vicious inhumanity. Having devoted extensive time and effort to documenting his atrocities, we estimate that in the last twenty-five years of Ba`th Party rule the Iraqi government murdered or “disappeared” some quarter of a million Iraqis, if not more. In addition, one must consider such abuses as Iraq’s use of chemical weapons against Iranian soldiers. However, by the time of the March 2003 invasion, Saddam Hussein’s killing had ebbed.

There were times in the past when the killing was so intense that humanitarian intervention would have been justified—for example, during the 1988 Anfal genocide, in which the Iraqi government slaughtered some 100,000 Kurds. Indeed, Human Rights Watch, though still in its infancy and not yet working in the Middle East in 1988, did advocate a form of military intervention in 1991 after we had begun addressing Iraq. As Iraqi Kurds fleeing Saddam Hussein’s brutal repression of the post-Gulf War uprising were stranded and dying in harsh winter weather on Turkey’s mountainous border, we advocated the creation of a no-fly zone in northern Iraq so they could return home without facing renewed genocide. There were other moments of intense killing as well, such as the suppression of the uprisings in 1991. But on the eve of the latest Iraq war, no one contends that the Iraqi government was engaged in killing of anywhere near this magnitude, or had been for some time. “Better late than never” is not a justification for humanitarian intervention, which should be countenanced only to stop mass murder, not to punish its perpetrators, desirable as punishment is in such circumstances.

But if Saddam Hussein committed mass atrocities in the past, wasn’t his overthrow justified to prevent his resumption of such atrocities in the future? No. Human Rights Watch accepts that military intervention may be necessary not only to stop ongoing slaughter but also to prevent future slaughter, but the future slaughter must be imminent. To justify the extraordinary remedy of military force for preventive humanitarian purposes, there must be evidence that large-scale slaughter is in preparation and about to begin unless militarily stopped. But no one seriously claimed before the war that the Saddam Hussein government was planning imminent mass killing, and no evidence has emerged that it was. There were claims that Saddam Hussein, with a history of gassing Iranian soldiers and Iraqi Kurds, was planning to deliver weapons of mass destruction through terrorist networks, but these allegations were entirely speculative; no substantial evidence has yet emerged. There were also fears that the Iraqi government might respond to an invasion with the use of chemical or biological weapons, perhaps even against its own people, but no one seriously suggested such use as an imminent possibility in the absence of an invasion.

Emphasis added.
Daniel

[XT]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Huh. What lies and misinformation, specifically, did Clinton spread that led to the deaths in Bosnia? Reagan I’ll give you, probably: the major lies we associate with his administration (or at least that I associate with it) revolved around covert killing in Central America, and you’re probably right that the death total reached 10,000. As you say, there aren’t many lies associated with Carter’s involvement with the Shah of Iran.

Well, there are allegations that Clinton committed the US to Bosnia to distract attention from certain investigations that were underway. Wag the dog and all that. Not going to get into THAT debate unless you really want too, but I’d say that the opposition THINKS Clinton told lies about Bosnia.

Ask yourself this though…WHY was the US involved in Bosnia? It really was none of our business afterall. NATO involved us, but NATO hadn’t been attacked after all. The UN hadn’t sanctioned intervention in Bosnia. It was a purely European affair, yet there was the US. Why?

No, there aren’t many lies with Carter, but it was his bungling and idealism that pretty much allowed the Shaw to be toppled. Again, many here would say thats a good thing and it wasn’t bungling at all but only a desire to do whats ‘right’. I’d have to roll my eyes at such a simplistic outlook, especially in light of what happened in Iran from this idealism. Reguardless, a lot of people died, probably within your 10,000 arbitrary mark.

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Body count is the meaningful measurement, I think. I mean, we’re talking about matters of life and death here. We’re talking about whether the president is responsible for getting people killed. If you said that the lying aspect weren’t meaningful, I could see where you’re coming from, but how on earth is the death aspect not meaningful?

I disagree…body count is meaningless. If the war is justified and right, it doesn’t matter what the body count is. If its no, it doesn’t matter if only one person died in it. THATS why the death aspect is not meaningful, at least in setting arbitrary death limits.

And I never said the lieing aspect isn’t meaningful…it is. What I said is, as far as the evidence I’ve seen, you can’t PROVE that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq so why fight that battle that can’t be won…at least until some solid data comes out proving that he lied?

-XT

[XT]

BTW, that 100k figure on death tolls in Iraq has pretty much been debunked. If I can find the article ripping it appart I’ll try and post it later if you are interested. From what I recall from the article the actual death count is something like 15-17k Iraqi’s (as of the time of the article…its probably more by now).

I can’t remember the exact figure on deaths due to the sanctions on the Iraqi citizens per year but I think it was higher than that. Deaths due directly from the regime per year were a lot lower (I seem to recall a 2000 per year figure from somewhere). So its all in how you look at it. Reguardless, I don’t believe that this justifies the US invasion reguardless…it only puts it into a somewhat better light. If we are going to invade nations to stop killings there are a lot better places to start in the world than Iraq…or Bosnia. Africa springs to mind, or perhaps North Korea where millions have starved.

-XT

[Bricker]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I did, however, find a pretty relevant article at Human Rights Watch that discusses the exact issues we’re talking about here. From the section "The level of killing:

Human Rights Watch accepts that military intervention may be necessary not only to stop ongoing slaughter but also to prevent future slaughter, but the future slaughter must be imminent.

OK, that’s HRW’s standard for justification. Why should it be mine? I contend that as long as we know the future slaughter is likely coming, that’s enough. It doesn’t have to be imminent.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

OK, that’s HRW’s standard for justification. Why should it be mine? I contend that as long as we know the future slaughter is likely coming, that’s enough. It doesn’t have to be imminent.

Who said it does have to be yours? It’s one educated opinion I was putting forth for discussion.

Now, you say that we just have to know that the future slaughter is likely coming. Is there any time limit on this, or any degree of certainty, that you’d require? If we suspect that a country may, at some point in the next two hundred years, embark on a campaign of genocide, does this justify an invasion now?

And on what basis do you believe we knew that the future slaughter was likely coming? Even if we adopt your standard (which seems pretty relaxed to me), I don’t see that this war met it.

Daniel

[ElvisL1ves]

@xtisme

BTW, that 100k figure on death tolls in Iraq has pretty much been debunked.

That was the Lancet estimate of all the deaths that have occurred that would not have if there had been no war, not necessarily from direct hostilities, although the dead people are just as dead either way. If you think it’s been debunked, show us - if anything, their methodology seems conservative. But if Saddam is responsible for 250,000 deaths instead of our 100,000, it is not really possible to say with pride “See? We’re only 40% as evil as Saddam. So far.”
It is certainly interesting to see Bricker claim a more liberal standard for humanitarian intervention that that of Human Rights Watch. Hard to see how it differs from an imperialist standard, though.

[scotandrsn]

@Bricker

…FDR – he got us into the war because he was convinced the right thing to do was eliminate the Third Reich. He was right…

Matter of history.

@Bricker

And if history judges him well for eliminating Hussein and setting up a stable Arab democracy in the Middle East, from which other democracies arise…

Matter of asolute wild-ass conjecture.

[scotandrsn]

@Bricker

…FDR – he got us into the war because he was convinced the right thing to do was eliminate the Third Reich. He was right…

Matter of history.

@Bricker

And if history judges him well for eliminating Hussein and setting up a stable Arab democracy in the Middle East, from which other democracies arise…

Matter of absolute wild-ass conjecture.

[Bricker]

@ElvisL1ves

That was the Lancet estimate of all the deaths that have occurred that would not have if there had been no war, not necessarily from direct hostilities, although the dead people are just as dead either way. If you think it’s been debunked, show us - if anything, their methodology seems conservative. But if Saddam is responsible for 250,000 deaths instead of our 100,000, it is not really possible to say with pride “See? We’re only 40% as evil as Saddam. So far.”

On the contrary - we looked at a situation in which 250,000 would have died, and did our best to intervene, and now only 100,000 have died. That’s 150,000 lives saved, by my calculations.

Of course, I didn’t learned the New Math. Maybe you got a different answer.

[Bricker]

@scotandrsn

Matter of history.

NOW, yes. Not in 1941.

Matter of asolute wild-ass conjecture.

NOW, yes. Not in 2020.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

On the contrary - we looked at a situation in which 250,000 would have died

We did? Do tell! This is the first I’ve heard about it–unless you’re talking about the “mushroom cloud” nonsense.

Daniel

[XT]

@ElvisL1ves

That was the Lancet estimate of all the deaths that have occurred that would not have if there had been no war, not necessarily from direct hostilities, although the dead people are just as dead either way. If you think it’s been debunked, show us - if anything, their methodology seems conservative. But if Saddam is responsible for 250,000 deaths instead of our 100,000, it is not really possible to say with pride “See? We’re only 40% as evil as Saddam. So far.”

I couldn’t find the article I was reading earlier and I’m in and out today in meetings so I doubt I’ll get to it. Basically the article went into their methodology, how they did their sampling, changes to the randomness because they couldn’t sample some areas, and the debate about what the figures were for deaths prior to the invasion and after (i.e. the article I read said that the figure used by Lancet was incorrect and explained why). However, as I couldn’t find the article I’ll just withdraw the comment about it being debunked for now unless I have time to look it up later.

Here is something from Iraq Body Count though (estimate: min: 15493 Max: 17721) who I have always found more credible, and who isn’t exactly a friend to Bush or the Administration:

Some people have asked us why we have not increased our count to 100,000 in the light of the multiple media reports of the recent Lancet study [link] which claims this as a probable and conservative estimate of Iraqi casualties.

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not “possible” or even “probable” deaths.

The Lancet study’s headline figure of “100,000” excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count. Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website’s front-page headline “100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion”, [link] the authors clearly state that “many” of the dead in their sample may have been combatants [P.7]). Iraq Body Count only includes reports where there are feasible methods of distinguishing military from civilian deaths (most of the uncertainty that remains in our own count - the difference between our reported Minimum and Maximum - arises from this issue). Our count is purely a civilian count.

@ElvisL1ves

But if Saddam is responsible for 250,000 deaths instead of our 100,000, it is not really possible to say with pride “See? We’re only 40% as evil as Saddam. So far.”

This assumes our motives are no better than Saddam’s, or that the body count in either case is the only measurement. Perhaps to your mind it is and Saddam and the US are equal as far as motive goes. To my own, though I disagreed with the invasion and think it was wrong for the US to do so, I don’t see our attempting to install a Democratic government in Iraq or remove an evil and potentially distructive regime, nor combatting reactionary forces that would like to re-install another Sunni dictator to continue to have the whip hand over the Shi’ites OR a fundamentalist Islamic state a la Iraq as in the same league. I just don’t think it was OUR responsibility to remove him, but I see a pretty wide gulf in our actions and Saddams, in our motives and goals and his. Obviously YMMV.

And of course, if the 100k figure IS way overblown and IBC is more accurate, then you are talking about the US being only 6% as evil (if I assume your 250k figure is accurate which I’m doing only for the sake of arguement)…

-XT

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@xtisme

And of course, if the 100k figure IS way overblown and IBC is more accurate, then you are talking about the US being only 6% as evil (if I assume your 250k figure is accurate which I’m doing only for the sake of arguement)…

First, IBC suggests that Lancet’s count is not theirs because:

1. It uses projections; and
2. It counts combatants.

I’ve got no problem with either aspect of Lancet’s count, although it’s useful for IBC to keep their own separate count. I believe the article you quoted admits that IBC’s methodology is extremely conservative.

Second, the quarter-million dead count is over at least two decades. If you want to set a grisly comparison like that, surely you should prorate it.

Daniel

[elucidator]

Bricker, if these men were more worthy, your defense would be noble. As it stands, it is mostly obstinate.

It doesn’t matter if FDR told one lie, ten or a thousand, or if his motives were noble or corrupt beyond measure. Only one man sits in the Oval Office, only one signature rests on the relevent documents. Having admitted that Bush is a warmonger, you now seem determined to convince us that there is such a thing as a “good” warmonger. You offer us Bush’s fantasies about democracy and liberty as though they were facts. They are not, and are not likely to be.

But that isn’t really germane, that is part and parcel of your “good warmonger” delusion. If by some miracle beyond our ken, this whole thing should turn out splendidly, that will not be any testament to Bush’s wisdom, but to the bizzarely unpredictable nature of human events. A man who bets all he has that he can draw one card to a straight flush is a fool, whether or not he succeeds.

There is no “President Dave”, what we have is a dangerous fool, a mediocrity who imagines himself a Leader of Men, he imagines he can fill FDR’s or JFK’s shoes, and might find them a bit snug. He led us to war on issues of self-defense, he now wishes to pretend that there were other issues, equally important, and that those issues can simply be shifted into place and take up the big hole. Apparently, you find such nonsense acceptable, even praiseworthy.

It is a shame and a waste to see such advocacy skills squandered on such ignoble goals. If you can’t find a worthy cause to advocate, you need but ask, I have several.

[ElvisL1ves]

[quote=ElvisL1ves]

But if Saddam is responsible for 250,000 deaths instead of our 100,000, it is not really possible to say with pride “See? We’re only 40% as evil as Saddam. So far.”

This assumes our motives are no better than Saddam’s, or that the body count in either case is the only measurement. Perhaps to your mind it is and Saddam and the US are equal as far as motive goes.

I also said the dead people are just as dead either way. You think they, or their surviving families, care what our motives were? Do you think they notice the number of other bereaved families around them and tell each other “Well, at least the Americans got rid of Saddam, so they must not have meant to kill any of us?” Every unnecessarily-dead person counts against us, and against any claim for our purity of purpose. The count of the unnecessarily dead is at least in five digits and still rising.

Telling ourselves that we had good intentions may be comforting to ourselves, but then we’re not the ones who have to live with the most serious consequences, are we? One of the ostensible expected outcomes of this folly was to win their hearts and minds, establish democracy, and make a united Iraq a firm ally. Every dead Iraqi counts against that. Even the insurgents; they all came from real homes and real families, and did not surrender their humanity when they joined the fight, whatever their reasons.

@Bricker

we looked at a situation in which 250,000 would have died

Cite? Hell, explanation? Or just yanked out of your ass?

[ElvisL1ves]

Dammit. XT, I trust you can read the above. This might have gotten lost, though:

@Bricker

we looked at a situation in which 250,000 would have died

To be polite: Cite?

[XT]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Second, the quarter-million dead count is over at least two decades. If you want to set a grisly comparison like that, surely you should prorate it.

Note that I was responding to ElvisL1ves comment “But if Saddam is responsible for 250,000 deaths instead of our 100,000, it is not really possible to say with pride “See? We’re only 40% as evil as Saddam. So far.””

Also note that ‘the past two decades’ included the Iran/Iraq war so I would guess the body count would be a lot higher in that time frame for Saddam that a quarter-million. I’ve seen estimates in the millions. The irony of using low level figures for the death total under Saddam but using a study thats on the high end of the scale for any study or group estimating casualties in Iraq is probably lost on you.

However, again, you are focused on body count as the primary data point. You don’t seem to care anything for motive at all. Saddam killed however many he killed in a naked attempt to remain in power and instill fear and obediance in the population. The US’s motives, while a bit murky, have the somewhat redeeming characteristic that we are at least TRYING to give the Iraqi’s a chance to decide their own fate.

@Left Hand of Dorkness

I’ve got no problem with either aspect of Lancet’s count, although it’s useful for IBC to keep their own separate count. I believe the article you quoted admits that IBC’s methodology is extremely conservative.

Is that what you got out of the article? I got that they only count real bodies that are verified, civilian (as opposed to lumping civilian and combatant numbers together as in Lancet), and deaths from violence (again, as opposed to Lancets gunshot approach), and they don’t attempt to make projections at all…again, as opposed to Lancet which pretty much used that methology. I freely conceed that the two studies are completely different and are looking at different things, and so aren’t really comparable. I only put it in to give IBC’s own thoughts on Lancet.

My main problems with the Lancet study are the huge range (8000-194k) which to me doesn’t really say much as the range is ridiculously large, the fact they used a sensationalized title (IMO) of “100,000 civilian deaths” when they lump civilian and combatant deaths together (due to their survey methodology), that it relies heavily on mainly unverified surveys of Iraqi’s (i.e. they asked people in their clusters whether or not a family member had died) without, afaik, actually looking to see if there were any death certificates, that some of the clusters were in disproportionately heavy fighting areas, like Fallujah, that in many cases they didn’t actually follow their own random survey maps because it was too dangerous to survey some regions (completely understandable btw, but it throws off the whole randomness of the survey), and that it appears they are using bad numbers for pre-war/post-war mortality rate figures…figures that paint a much rosier picture of pre-war Iraq than was perhaps the case, and so skew their conclusions and even their estimates.

Unlike most of the critics of Lancet I don’t think they have or had a political agenda (though I’m unsure of why they felt it was necessary to use such a sensationalized comment of ‘100,000 civilian deaths’)…I just don’t think they are as on target as other groups doing estimates.

-XT

[XT]

@ElvisL1ves

To be polite: Cite?

Are you asking ME for a cite here? What exactly do you want a cite for? Estimates on Iraqi deaths under Saddam?

@ElvisL1ves

I also said the dead people are just as dead either way. You think they, or their surviving families, care what our motives were? Do you think they notice the number of other bereaved families around them and tell each other “Well, at least the Americans got rid of Saddam, so they must not have meant to kill any of us?” Every unnecessarily-dead person counts against us, and against any claim for our purity of purpose. The count of the unnecessarily dead is at least in five digits and still rising.

Of course the families of those who lost loved ones, especially children, aren’t going to be happy with us, nor understanding. Its always the case in war. However, the majority of the population in Iraq at least has a CHANCE for a better life in the future. And I think that many if not most Iraqi’s ARE happy to be out from under the thumb of Saddam…perhaps even some folks who lost loved ones.

@ElvisL1ves

Telling ourselves that we had good intentions may be comforting to ourselves, but then we’re not the ones who have to live with the most serious consequences, are we? One of the ostensible expected outcomes of this folly was to win their hearts and minds, establish democracy, and make a united Iraq a firm ally. Every dead Iraqi counts against that. Even the insurgents; they all came from real homes and real families, and did not surrender their humanity when they joined the fight, whatever their reasons.

Well, I don’t agree with you about the core point. Iraqi’s today have a chance to build something for themselves that they wouldn’t have gotten for decades, if ever, under Saddam and son’s. They have a chance for a real say in their government for the first time, to set their own direction. Its been a rough ride, and its by no means over, but I have to say that people have been willing to make much greater sacrifices in the past for such a chance.

The Iraqi people didn’t really ask for this chance of course, they were just the unwilling participants in a global pissing contest between their government and ruler and the US. The fault for this stupid war lies both with Bush AND with Saddam, but probably more with Saddam than Bush, and in retrospect was probably inevitable eventually. They, the Iraqi people, had no say at all in this…they couldn’t vote out or get rid of Saddam after all, nor change the direction of their government. But see, thats kind of the point. NOW they actually have the chance to have a say in the future so such a thing won’t be repeated.

As to the insurgents, you are painting them like they are all coming from the salt of the earth in Iraq…the poor downtrodden masses desparately struggling against the vile American invaders against incredible odds in their valiant fight for freedom and justice for all…

Its a noble way to look at it, but kind of far from reality. Though the insurgents make up varies from region to region, most of them are made up of former Baathists or Sunni disgruntaled that they no longer hold the whip hand over the Shi’ites and scared shitless over the prospect of having to share power with them, and foreign Islamic Jihadists come to bag some Americans and to attempt to install a new Iran, with a sprinkling of out and out terrorists and psychopaths there to simply sow death and chaos, and a pinch of Shi’ite factions like Sadr and his merry band who aren’t going to get the power they feel they should have in the new government taking shape.

I have no doubt that scattered among these major blocks of insurgents there are some of your noble Iraqi’s simply fighting for freedom from the Americans (or for revenge for loved ones killed), but I think the majority are not fighting for such noble goals.

-XT

[elucidator]

@xtisme

…Its a noble way to look at it, but kind of far from reality. Though the insurgents make up varies from region to region, most of them are made up of former Baathists or Sunni disgruntaled that they no longer hold the whip hand over the Shi’ites…

At last! Someone who actually knows something! XT knows who they are, what they want, thier composition, their goals. Now we’re getting somewhere!

Now, just to seal your case beyond any demur, I heartily recommend that you share with us the source of boundless certainty! You see, we only have sources that are suspect: our government, Al Jazeera, etc. All of these have agendas, their expertise is suspect.

But not you! You have the facts! At long last, the facts! But just to be sure, just to put your testimony beyond any contention…

Sez who?