Autolykos: At the very least, I think you need to provide an actual source for the death-toll figures under Saddam’s reign.
You believe the numbers are wrong, cite your own source.
Autolykos: But also, the study you link to only counts Iraqis who were directly killed by violence. If you’re “in the business”, you should know that casualty-of-war figures also include those who died indirectly from war, such as from disease and starvation as a result of it.
You don’t like the numbers, cite your own source.
I think the World Health organization has a link for the study methodology and the raw data which includes stats on pre-war and post-war infant mortality and stuff like that,
enjoy. maybe you can find a ‘fallacy’ hidden in there somewhere to refute their data.
I cite respected research from the WOrld Health organization (hardly a neocon source) and you cite anti-war.com, salon, elliot lake, and other unabashed highly suspect Left wing sources engaged in heavily biased commentary with selective data .
I think any objective and independent thinking arbiter who views this would confirm that no matter how reputible source I present you are going to match it with shrill leftwing or otherwise anti-American bias without a shred of objectivity.
case closed !
I think we can agree that it is futile to debate further when the ground rules prevent reasonable use of citations.
good luck to you, autolykos, daniel muffinberg, and other anarchist adherents, but I will no longer waste my time debating you.
Methinks you need to support the assertion of “[engaging] in heavily biased commentary with selective data”. Then again, I’m not surprised that you haven’t (and that you probably won’t).
See above.
In your own mind, perhaps.
You must be referring to your efforts to avoid being cornered in debate.
This is the second time you’ve said you’re leaving. Somehow I don’t think you’ll keep your word this time either. Don’t worry, I think we’ll be around when you come back.
I don’t give a damn what an arbiter would say, life isn’t a high-school debate club. The truth is what it is. You’re either seeking the truth for truth’s sake or you’re carrying water for somebody else. Please substantiate your accusations that antiwar.com or salon.com or even lewrockwell.com are biased sources. What is their hidden agenda? What is the power interest they are beholden to? Whose water are they carrying? The single largest funder of the UN - of which the WHO is an agency - is the very government whose stats the WHO is supposedly “objectively” analyzing. That’s worse than bias, that’s called conflict-of-interest. The folks over at Iraq Body Count have a similar number but they are clear that this is the most conservative possible number, in other words, no one can credibly claim that less than 111,504 Iraqis are dead as a result of the Iraq war.
Your glib math regarding the number of Iraqi lives the US has supposedly saved is downright sickening. You seem to forget that the US government actually backed Saddam Hussein when it served their interests. I wonder how many of those weapons we provide Hussein for use against the Iranian people were instead turned on the very Iraqis you want to count in the “killed by Hussein” column. Disgusting.
Mike: personally I like to see different points of view. that is the only way a nube like me can learn.
Have no fear Mike , I will stick around to offer an alternative view if no one else will, however I dont think it is constructive to debate when emotions get too high.
maybe one day I will start a thread
However dont expect an alternative view on economic issues, I subscribe to most of what I have read about the Austrian school from Mises and Hayek. less so from others though.
Why are we comparing something like Anti-war.com to LRC? LRC has gone downhill, takes cheap shots at fellow libertarian (non-Austrian) economists, and they believe any deviations from strict Rothbardianism is anti-libertarian and un-Austrian.
I’m sad to say I stopped reading LRC a while back, primarily because Lew insists on featuring Gary North and other writers of very dubious credentials in terms of their principled opposition to statism. Gary North, for example, is verifiably statist in the fullest sense of the term, he just wants a theocratic state. I can’t understand how someone with an avowed goal of “ushering in” the divine, millenial theocracy of Christ on Earth can be a prominent figure in the fight for liberty. Nowadays, I just drop in on LRC sporadically whenever I can’t seem to find any decent news anywhere else. He really does diligently crawl the news.