I was just making a point against you "rolling your eyes" in the third post.

 

ugh. you guys need to give this a rest. hitler is on another plane of evil.

if you want to try and make comparisons, how about the US backed General Pinochet of Chile. he was ten times as bad as Sadddam

 

How foolish of me to roll my eyes over 300,000 dead bodies. Sorry.

 

Yeah spin it just like that.

 

Spin it like what? 300,000 just doesn't do it for ya?

I can't believe a number like that even warrants an agrument.

 

You keep taking everything I say and going back to the fact that saddam was bad and killed alot of people. I get it, he was horrible, he needed to go, he was responsible for 300,000 deaths.

What he did is a nothing compared to WWII and the fall of the ****'s. His toppling is a really good thing I don't dispute that. But the chance of having our whole world wiped out just doesn't compare to the fall of Saddam.

I'm sorry it just doesn't

 

I agree with this.

Given that you also agree with this, how do you hold the Cold War to a higher respect? Those that died were stupid enough to cross the wall

This is what I don't understand. And in order for those few people to validate it here it must be tucked away in a separate sub-directory altogether. Way down at the bottom so nobody can see it and associate it to anything worthwhile or positive.

If this wasn't the case then there wouldn't have been belittling comments about snickers bars, Iraqi citizen turnout, using the phrase "nothing compared" and the correlation of Pinochet to Saddam. Don't forget to mention that he was backed by the USA though! That's key!

 

I can't speak for others about thier comments. They feel differently then I do.

But the cold war was an era that changed the world while it was occuring through the decades. People all over the world (not just one or two countires) lived in fear.

You don't agree, and that's fine. But what happened in iraq shouldn't be belittled in any way shape or form.

 

Hmmm, Pinochet: 3000 or so bodies, and the Chilean economy is one of the best in South America.

Saddam: As many as 1 million bodies, and Iraq's infrastructure needs to be rebuilt from scratch.

You sure about that, ten times as bad as Saddam?

Edited: Should have put 1, not 2 millions

 

Salty:

I just do not understnad how the two can even be remotely on the same scale on a world level. Many countries had so many more deaths than Iraq (not at all that those are unimportant). Take Hitler: 12,000,000 dead. Or Stalin, on the subject of the Berlin wall: 13,000,000. Or cambodia: 1,700,000. According to this site, it says Saddam killed 600,000 people which is an amazing and horrible amount. However, that is nothing compared to the amount killed in the Soviet Union. (source: http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html : It may not be from a scientific source but it gives a general sense of the diffrence.) This diffrence makes it so that though Saddam was bad, on a world scale the two events will never be thought of the same.
-Jeff

EDIT: http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/rummel/note4.htm

This site, by a person who studies genocides estimates 69,911,000 killed in the soviet union from 1917-1987! See figure below:

One more table, outlining sources for below & above site calculations:
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/rummel/sod.tab12.1.gif

 

Not at all that those are unimportant? If that's the case then why can't it be in the same category? Both numbers are horrific either way you slice it.

Everyone keeps dwelling on this without giving it any credit in the end. They'll mention the body count and that "what happened in Iraq shouldn't be belittled in any way shape or form" or isn't "unimportant." wtf?

Is this a good time to make a chart on what historical events meet everyone's criteria? Remember... We have to make sure we don't belittle any event or make the next one seem 'unimportant' Who wants to start? Any takers?

 

You're kidding, right? Clearly you havent followed the war crimes tribunal against him. The man is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

But you're right. The ecconomy should take precedent.

 

Nope, I'm not kidding. Since Pinochet didn't face a war crimes tribunal, I'm not sure how that would work out. He's sitting in Chile right now, facing an argument over whether or not he will be tried there.

You're free to find some numbers though.

 

I'm not saying at all that they are 'unimportant' or that we should ignore one or the other. I am simply saying that in a world view, they will never be remembered the same. To your average european/asian/australian/american/what-everan besides Kurdish or Iranian people sadly will not think "Iraq" when they think genocide. They will instead think of the holocaust, Rwanda, and possibly the soviet union if they were interested in that type of history.
-Jeff

 

Yes they are, but historically the fall of the berlin wall is WAY more important than the fall of Saddam. No matter how you slice it, thats the fact of the matter.

I still don't know what your trying to say. Historically, the Cold War is well way larger than the Iraq War. It also effected many more. I don't think anyone is arguing that the war in Iraq is a historical event. I think we, well I in this case, are arguing that it isn't as important to the world as the Cold War. You simply can't compare the two in any real manner. Death count, money count, time count, and almost anything else count. The end of the Cold War was the end of an Era. The end of the Iraq war was the end of a tyrants run.