Saddam's rule 'better' for gay Iraqis

[Modbert]

uh, warlords?
you sure you're not confusing Astan with Iraq?

Warlords, "Leaders", whatever you want to call them. The second we leave Iraq, the real civil war begins in Iraq most likely. It's been so explosive that it's been starting while we're still there.

 

[DiveCon]

uh, warlords?
you sure you're not confusing Astan with Iraq?

Warlords, "Leaders", whatever you want to call them. The second we leave Iraq, the real civil war begins in Iraq most likely. It's been so explosive that it's been starting while we're still there.

so, we shouldnt leave then?

 

[Modbert]

so, we shouldnt leave then?

Whether we leave a year from now or a hundred, this is going to occur. We should leave for many reasons, one including the fact they (Iraqi citizens) don't want us there.

 

[concept]

Don't see this on Fox News:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saddam's rule 'better' for gay Iraqis

Gay men inside Iraq have been able to seek sanctuary in safe houses, thanks to the UK-based Iraqi Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) group, which manages them from London.

The documentary team were granted exclusive access to one of the homes on the outskirts of Baghdad, where we found a 31-year-old transsexual man called Qasim (not his real name).

Qasim said: "I'm scared all the time. I often think people are going to come in the night and take me because I am particularly known as gay."

All the LGBT Iraqis interviewed for Gay Life After Saddam maintained that life was easier for them when Saddam Hussein was in power, from 1979 to 2003.

The people in those mass graves would probably have a different take on that.


LOL @libs.

 

[Modbert]

The people in those mass graves would probably have a different take on that.


LOL @libs.

As would the Iraqi people who are in graves around Iraq since the U.S Invasion in 2003.

 

[elvis]

The people in those mass graves would probably have a different take on that.


LOL @libs.

As would the Iraqi people who are in graves around Iraq since the U.S Invasion in 2003.

Do you have the numbers of those killed since March 19, 2003 vs the number killed by Saddam's regime?

 

[DiveCon]

The people in those mass graves would probably have a different take on that.


LOL @libs.

As would the Iraqi people who are in graves around Iraq since the U.S Invasion in 2003.

and how many of thoses were actually killed by US Forces and not the terrorists?

 

[elvis]

The people in those mass graves would probably have a different take on that.


LOL @libs.

As would the Iraqi people who are in graves around Iraq since the U.S Invasion in 2003.

and how many of thoses were actually killed by US Forces and not the terrorists?

To be fair, we have to estimate all the deaths that occurred because of the invasion. In other words, would the Civil War have broken out had Saddam remained in power?

 

[PuckeredPete]

That's right Republicans, just laugh and ignore the facts. If this was you though, you wouldn't be laughing. So much for Iraq being so much better with Saddam overthrown. Oh, don't forget that Women also had more rights under Saddam then they do now.

I was going to mention how women's rights have gone in the toilet too, but you beat me to it.


Theocracies suck.

 

[Modbert]

Do you have the numbers of those killed since March 19, 2003 vs the number killed by Saddam's regime?

The number killed by Saddam's regime specifically?

An average of 16,000 a year between 1979 and March 2003.

384,000 in 24 years.

For those killed since March 19, 2003, you have a couple different sources:

Source Iraqi deaths March 2003 to...
Iraq Family Health Survey 151,000 violent deaths June 2006
Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths.
June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. August 2007
Iraq Body Count 91,059 – 99,431 violent civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. February 2009

In December 2005 President Bush said there were 30,000 Iraqi dead. White House spokesman Scott McClellan later said it was "not an official government estimate", and was based on media reports.[66][67]

The United Nations reported that 34,452 violent civilian deaths occurred in 2006, based on data from morgues, hospitals, and municipal authorities across Iraq.[16

A June 25, 2006 Los Angeles Times article, "War's Iraqi Death Toll Tops 50,000",[70] reported that their estimate of violent deaths consisted "mostly of civilians" but probably also included security forces and insurgents. It added that, "Many more Iraqis are believed to have been killed but not counted because of serious lapses in recording deaths in the chaotic first year after the invasion, when there was no functioning Iraqi government, and continued spotty reporting nationwide since." Here is how the Times got their number: "The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from 'military clashes' and 'terrorist attacks' from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137. However, samples obtained from local health departments in other provinces show an undercount that brings the total well beyond 50,000. The figure also does not include deaths outside Baghdad in the first year of the invasion."

This is where it gets REALLY interesting:

A September 14, 2007 estimate by ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent British polling agency, suggests that the total Iraqi violent death toll due to the Iraq War since the US-led invasion is in excess of 1.2 million (1,220,580). Although higher than the 2006 Lancet estimate through June 2006, these results, which were based on a survey of 1499 adults in Iraq from August 12-19, 2007, are more or less consistent with the figures that were published in the Lancet study.[12][14][73][74]

On 28 January 2008, ORB published an update based on additional work carried out in rural areas of Iraq. Some 600 additional interviews were undertaken and as a result of this the death estimate was revised to 1,033,000 with a given range of 946,000 to 1,120,000.[11]

D3 systems poll: 17% of respondents reported that at least one member of the household had been 'physically harmed by the violence that is occurring in the country at this time', translating into at least ~650-700,000 Iraqis. The survey did not ask whether multiple household members had been harmed, so the actual number would most likely be significantly higher.

Most of these studies claim undercounting too.

So it's most likely that we've passed Saddam's mark in 6 years that he did in 24 years. If not, we're close to it at this point.

 

[Modbert]

To be fair, we have to estimate all the deaths that occurred because of the invasion. In other words, would the Civil War have broken out had Saddam remained in power?

No, any opposition would of been killed like it had been over the last 24 years. Like you said Elvis, we have to estimate all the deaths that occurred because of the invasion.

 

[elvis]

To be fair, we have to estimate all the deaths that occurred because of the invasion. In other words, would the Civil War have broken out had Saddam remained in power?

No, any opposition would of been killed like it had been over the last 24 years. Like you said Elvis, we have to estimate all the deaths that occurred because of the invasion.

Saddam provided stability and a balance of power to the Middle East, at a tremendous detriment to the people of Iraq.

Now iran is the most powerful country in the region, except for israel depending on how you look at it.

 

[Modbert]

Saddam provided stability and a balance of power to the Middle East, at a tremendous detriment to the people of Iraq.

Now iran is the most powerful country in the region, except for israel depending on how you look at it.

Pretty much, also the statistics are on Page 2 if you didn't see them.

On a side note to those statistics, those do not even take into account the eventual civil war that will occur with the power vacuum when we leave.

Second side note: Cheney said it best (back in 1993 though)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8MePwb6TEk[/ame]

What he says makes you think because this could end up in starting World War III in the Middle East.

 

[Nik]

Saddam was a US sock puppet over there, the whole reason he had to be removed was because he bit the hand that fed him ... so of course he would have followed our civil rights ideals.

Wtf? Are you on crack?

Saddam was a US sock puppet?

He followed our civil rights ideals?

Saddam massacred thousands of his own people....you think that is following our civl rights ideas?

Think for just a second before typing next time.

 

[Nik]

To be fair, we have to estimate all the deaths that occurred because of the invasion. In other words, would the Civil War have broken out had Saddam remained in power?

No, any opposition would of been killed like it had been over the last 24 years. Like you said Elvis, we have to estimate all the deaths that occurred because of the invasion.

Saddam provided stability and a balance of power to the Middle East, at a tremendous detriment to the people of Iraq.

Now iran is the most powerful country in the region, except for israel depending on how you look at it.

And now they are free!

Except for the women.

And the gays.

And well that civil war going on is somewhat problematic.

And all those dead folks.

But freedom from Saddam is worth all that, and we are proud to have made the choice to kill other people for our own ideals!