Cripple. History Major. Irritable and in constant pain. Vaguely Left-Wing.

  • 5.15K Posts
  • 10.2K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 21st, 2023

help-circle
  • Casualties for the entirety of the ‘War On Terror’, including seriously wounded (and including part of the period, likewise, ‘beyond the 20 year cutoff’), usually hover around 1.5 million.

    Your own fucking source:

    937,000+ direct deaths including 387,000+ civilians,

    Would you like to remind me what 937,000 is lower than? Perhaps a number like… 1.5 million?

    As I said, if you want to discuss indirect deaths, that’s going to lead to significantly increased numbers for Russia as well.

    Absolutely not, but the sanctions were excessively brutal considering that “The original stated purposes of the sanctions were to compel Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait, to pay reparations, and to disclose and eliminate any weapons of mass destruction (WMD)”.

    Again, from your own fucking cited source:

    There is a general consensus that the sanctions achieved the express goals of limiting Iraqi arms. For example, U.S. Under Secretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith says that the sanctions diminished Iraq militarily.[25] According to scholars George A. Lopez and David Cortright: “Sanctions compelled Iraq to accept inspections and monitoring and won concessions from Baghdad on political issues such as the border dispute with Kuwait. They also drastically reduced the revenue available to Saddam, prevented the rebuilding of Iraqi defenses after the Persian Gulf War, and blocked the import of vital materials and technologies for producing WMD.”[26][27][28] Saddam told his Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) interrogator[29] that Iraq’s armaments “had been eliminated by the UN sanctions.”[30]

    Some commentators blame Saddam Hussein for the excess deaths reported during this period. For example, Rubin argued that the Kurdish and the Iraqi governments handled OFFP aid differently, and that therefore the Iraqi government policy, rather than the sanctions themselves, should be held responsible for any negative effects.[58][59] Likewise, Cortright claimed: “The tens of thousands of excess deaths in the south-center, compared to the similarly sanctioned but UN-administered north, are the result of Baghdad’s failure to accept and properly manage the UN humanitarian relief effort.”[27] In the run-up to the Iraq War, some[60] disputed the idea that excess mortality exceeded 500,000, because the Iraqi government had interfered with objective collection of statistics (independent experts were barred).[61]

    The Iraq Inquiry led by Sir John Chilcot examined a February 2003 statement by then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair that “today, 135 out of every 1,000 Iraqi children die before the age of five”. The inquiry found that the figure in question was provided to Blair by Secretary of State for International Development Clare Short and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) based on the 1999 ICMMS study, but an internal caveat from the FCO and the Department for International Development (DFID) to the effect that the ICMMS was of questionable reliability because it had been “conducted with the Iraqi regime’s ‘help’ and relied on some Iraqi figures” was not communicated to Blair by a 10 Downing Street official. The inquiry noted “The level of child mortality in Iraq estimated by the ICMMS was significantly higher than that estimated by later surveys,” citing “estimates that the under‑five mortality rate in Iraq was 55 per 1,000 in 1989, 46 per 1,000 in 1999, 42 per 1,000 in 2003, and 37 per 1,000 in 2010 (when Mr Blair gave his evidence to the Inquiry).”[73]

    I support sanctions only to the extent they can achieve the desired effect without causing large amounts of harm to unrelated people. The Iraq sanctions had multiple UN officials resigning specifically because they weren’t that. There was no need to kill half a million children to prevent Iraq from rearming itself. This isn’t exactly a controversial position.

    Clearly it is, as your own fucking source notes that it’s controversial, both in terms of child mortality and in terms of efficacy.

    I mean he literally backed down today (or was it yesterday in America?), so clearly he’s not unafraid of the economic effects of his policies. Or this is all just a front for insider trading. Probably the latter.

    The latter. If Trump was ‘afraid’ of the economic effects of his policies, the entire tariff conversation would look nothing like… well, what it does.





  • PugJesus@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldI'm new and missed the lore
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    33 minutes ago

    I believe it was you who started,

    So if someone uses what you regard as an ableist insult, you think it’s appropriate to use that same ableist insult against them? Wow. I’d hate to hear your opinions on the r-word.

    also I didn’t even call you anything, just observed that you are supreme authority on the matter

    Then we’re in agreement that the .ml admins are cretinous, since I’m the supreme authority on the matter. Thank you for affirming my opinion, strange that you would go through all this trouble just to agree with me though. :)





  • hardly, I’m just pointing out that you’re clearly speaking as the most authoritative person on the subject

    But your claim of my authority is that I am cretinous, which is an ableist insult according to you.

    It seems it takes very little to get you to whip out the ableist insults. That’s pretty disgusting, ngl.





  • PugJesus@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldI'm new and missed the lore
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    51 minutes ago

    If it “Takes one to know one”, then you are not merely affirming that I’m vile and cretinous, you are also necessarily affirming that my recognition of the .ml admins as vile and cretinous is correct by regarding my qualities as necessarily granting me insight as to whether or not the admins share said qualities.

    I understand that might be too complex for you to parse on short notice, considering your previous difficulty with discerning the meaning of plainly stated reasons in the form of the written word regarding the 196 issue, but I’m sure that if you sit and ponder it for a few hours, it might eventually click.






  • I was just pointing out that your first response was ableist insult,

    I thought you were trying to say it was an insult based on some form of nationality. You did, after all, say, and I quote

    I don’t think they’re from Crete, maybe you should try insulting people less in the future?

    Unless being from Crete is a disability, you didn’t point out, real or attempted, anything regarding ableism.


  • Excellent! 👌 that’s the garum I’m talking about ! And did any Roman emperor got taxes crazy?

    Empire-wide taxes were harder to implement, but there are definite examples of more ‘tax-happy’ Emperors! In the Late Empire (the ‘Dominate’) it got particularly bad, but in the Early Empire (the ‘Principate’, what most people think of when they think ‘The Roman Empire’), most new taxes were implemented locally. The Principate, in general, found it easier to make demands of local governments, and then have those local governments do the necessary legwork to figure out how to get the money.

    Two of the most hated taxes were actually implemented by the first Emperor, Augustus. One on slave auctions, and one on inheritances. The Emperor Vespasian though, famously, implemented a tax on urine collection in the city of Rome (as it was used in bleaching and leatherworking), to his son’s disgust!

    Much of the time, Roman Emperors in financial trouble would resort to selling off parts of the imperial household, seizing the property of their political enemies, or debasing the currency over raising new taxes, though. Taxes cause unrest, and unrest can be quite deadly for a ruler!

    Btw if you don’t mind me asking, how are you so knowledgeable in the Roman Empire? Are you a time traveler ?

    I sacrificed basic life skills in exchange for an obsession with minute historical trivia.

    I can’t change the oil on a car, but I can tell you all about Ancient Rome!



  • it’s called /all I hadn’t bothered the block the new 196 so it showed up, I commented because I took it as some earnestly asking for advice, rather than a cj thread

    And then proceeded to complain about the ban in YePowerTrippingBastards, citing the 196 sidebar rules in your complaint. Clearly you had no clue where you were. :)


  • I don’t think they’re from Crete, maybe you should try insulting people less in the future?

    Someone from Crete is a Cretan, not a cretin. If you’re going to loudly trumpet your position as ESL as a deflection of your own inability to parse basic English conversations, maybe you should take a step away from trying to correct the English of others.


  • PugJesus@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldI'm new and missed the lore
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    maybe you should tell me what your narrative is then

    Exactly what the 196 mods said, if you’d bothered to read literally any of the stickied posts that came up at the time. There was disagreement with the admins over how to moderate 196, especially regarding ban lengths and presumption of good faith.

    But of course, you didn’t read any of it. You made up a narrative that you suited your pre-existing biases, and proceed to spread it even though, but your own admission, you didn’t follow the issue - apparently at all. Of course, you also claimed that you don’t use 196 despite having been banned from 196, so maybe you aren’t the most reliable narrator. :)



  • I said that was the reason they left, because it was a huge debacle that nobody could miss when it happened.

    You didn’t miss it, but apparently, you were completely incapable of parsing what was going on. Which is unsurprising coming from someone who bootlicks dictators and thinks that’s leftism. :)

    instead of of making up shit

    lmao, coming from someone who’s claiming the 196 move was over .world not respecting neopronouns, when respecting neopronouns is still a rule on the .world 196 and has been since day 1 of the move.