As Midderpidge and everyone else has pointed out repeatedly, there is nothing to debate because the “factual” comparison you are using to support your entire argument — that things are better in Iraq — is 100 percent bogus.

Let’s compare the networths of Bob and Larry.

Bob owns a home worth about $300,000, his retirement and other accounts have about $300,000, his car and personal belongings are worth about $60,000. He has no outstanding loans. A fair estimate his networth might be about $660,000

Larry has $820 in his wallet. His networth might be about $820.

Recap: You used two different and incompatible standards to make a comparison.
On one hand you take an estimate of the whole and accept that as a fair representation.
On the other side you take an estimation of a fragment of the whole and declare it to be representative of the whole.
That makes for an invlaid statement on your part and until you address it all of your arguments are built on a foundation of sand with the tide coming in.

Note to Dugger: you have to admit I am not lying when I say this.

1. Prove it.
2. You have proven many times in the past that you don’t know the basic of algebra or statistics.
3. Why the hell should we believe a racist, child molesting, gay bashing, sadistic Nazi?

Poor Dugger, he’s gonna ruin his kidney drinking all that Kool Aid to wash away the taste of that.

Your entire argument that this is still a good thing rests on a totally bogus comparison, not to mention the worst kind of utilitarian morality.

You live in a fantasy land.

I’m sorry it hurts your feelings to think that Bush and the Republicans and Democrats who voted for war may have done mankind some good, but they did.

Don’t believe me? See what WaPo most recently says about casualties.

What are you, a freakin’ commie? That would be an equivalent. We can’t have that.

Not taking lives!

Do you have numbers for the four years just before our invasion?

So Dugger uses as his basis a total that reflects only confirmed and reported deaths on one side of his equation, and then on the other side uses a figure that is entirely based on estimates. Two different standards.

355,000 is not an unreasonable estimate if we take the Lancet study of 655,000 and add it to the IBC 55,000 and average the two which is far more accurate than Dugger’s method of taking a low that is presumed by it’s researchers to be way low and using that.

Why don’t you just average out the total number of Iraqis murdered going back 1,000 years to argue that Iraq is now safer now than it has ever been in the history of mankind?

Your use of statistics is absolutely mind boggling, and yet you keep coming back with dumber and dumber arguments.

It is in Bushworld.
Hell, get out the Medals of Freedom!
Heckuva job, Duggie.

Saving lives is important, but if you can’t keep them safe immediately afterwards, then what’s the point? Saving somebody who’s on fire by throwing them in a pool of crocodiles is not a job well done.

and wrong midder

IBC – Same source I always used.

The leftist Bush-hating WaPo just recemntly dealt with very similar numbers (to mine).

I know you both would like to believe the throroughly dicredited Lancet numbers. But they have been just that discredited by multiple sources – multiple times.

And Spider, you have it bass-ackwards. You wnat to say that those 60K dead post Saddam are somehow worse that that far greater number dead under Saddam. Thats cold.
Whats more important than saving lives? Name one thing.
If gencocide is not the greatest evil, what is? And we can’t establish genocide without chronicling the butchery of the purveyor, can we.

You forgot a zero, here, I think.