Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I think the theory is that saving people from a dictator by killing more of them than he ever did or could and making life even worse than he did isn't a winning scheme. Intervening to make the situation worse is not helpful and if you can't think of an intervention that won't do that then maybe you shouldn't intervene.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 10:39:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, using the current war in Iraq as a model, my understanding is that Saddam Hussein was responsible for upwards of 1.5 million deaths during the Iran-Iraq war (depends on who you think "started" it, but Iraq invaded first), and then there are couple of hundred thousand more in the Gulf war, and a few tens of thousands of Iraqis in internal issues after that. So if the U.S. has "only" been responsible for 600,000 casualties, then we're ahead of the game, correct?

There must be a better way to decide this sort of thing...

by asdf on Thu Nov 2nd, 2006 at 09:29:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
So if the U.S. has "only" been responsible for 600,000 casualties, then we're ahead of the game, correct?

In fact, correct. Even counting all Iraq/Iran-War casualties for Saddam and using a high number for domestic casualties, 2 million over 25 years is a lower rate than 0.6 million over 2.5 years. Furthermore, it is not right to count absolute numbers: the real comparison is between Saddam in a contained state (e.g. since the summer of 1991) and US occupation. And 0.6 million is really the number of excess deaths, the death rate above what it was just before the US invasion.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Nov 3rd, 2006 at 04:03:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series