PDA

View Full Version : How Many Deaths Has Clinton Caused?



Ethereal
07-12-2016, 07:45 PM
There seems to be some confusion over how many deaths Hillary Clinton is responsible for, so I thought there should be a thread to help clarify the issue.

At the very least, she shares responsibility for the deaths of Iraqi and Libyan people who died as a result of the US government's military interventions in those countries.

Conservative estimates of the Iraqi civilian death toll are around 165,000: http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi

Estimates of the death toll in Libya range between 10,000 and 50,000: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure

So even the most conservative estimate has the Clinton death toll at somewhere around 175,000 people.

That's A LOT of dead people.

And this doesn't even examine the role Hillary Clinton's State Department played in the destruction of Syria, the unraveling of the Ukraine, and the Gulf State bombing of Yemen, to say nothing of Afghanistan.

All told, she could be responsible for somewhere close to 700,000 deaths, if not more.

Feel free to provide other estimates of the Clinton death toll.

Mini Me
07-12-2016, 08:05 PM
Gee, she must be incredibly powerfull to kill that many!How did she do it? Rather Stalinesque!

I put the deaths in Iraq @ Bedrserkistan on Bush/Cheny and the Neocon perpetual Zionist war group!

And how about Maobama?

Peter1469
07-12-2016, 08:06 PM
Clinton did lead the charge to destroy Libya and Syria.

Ethereal
07-12-2016, 08:20 PM
Gee, she must be incredibly powerfull to kill that many!

She is rather powerful, that's true. Senators and Secretaries of State usually are.


How did she do it?

By voting to authorize the use of military force in Iraq and by advising Obama to intervene militarily in Libya.


Rather Stalinesque!

Couldn't have said it better myself.


I put the deaths in Iraq @ Bedrserkistan on Bush/Cheny and the Neocon perpetual Zionist war group!

They all share responsibility, Clinton included.


And how about Maobama?

I want to limit this thread to Clinton, since she is the one running for President.

Ethereal
07-12-2016, 08:35 PM
This thread could also be used as a broader examination of her foreign policy legacy, which seems disastrous by any rational standard.

At a bare minimum, Hillary Clinton is partly responsible for the wanton destruction of at least three countries: Iraq, Libya, and Syria, none of which posed the slightest threat to America.

Ethereal
07-12-2016, 08:54 PM
Clinton supporters staying well clear of this one!

del
07-12-2016, 08:54 PM
it's probably the spittle that's keeping them away

Ethereal
07-12-2016, 08:56 PM
it's probably the spittle that's keeping them away

The more likely explanation is that they don't want to talk about the gargantuan pile of corpses that Clinton's foreign policies have produced.

del
07-12-2016, 09:01 PM
i'm going with the spittle

Ethereal
07-12-2016, 09:02 PM
Or maybe it's because they want to remain in willful ignorance of the wanton death and destruction the US government routinely inflicts on foreign people.


Poll: Americans underestimate Iraqi death toll (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-02-24-iraqi-deaths-poll_x.htm)

...

Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated at more than 54,000 and could be much higher; some unofficial estimates range into the hundreds of thousands. The U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq reports more than 34,000 deaths in 2006 alone.

Among those polled for the AP survey, however, the median estimate of Iraqi deaths was 9,890. The median is the point at which half the estimates were higher and half lower.

...

Fantasy is always more comforting than harsh reality.

Ethereal
07-12-2016, 09:03 PM
i'm going with the spittle

Another stellar contribution.

Peter1469
07-12-2016, 09:04 PM
The fans don't care. They pray to

https://cdn3.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/002/288/939/large/svein-yngve-sandvik-antonsen-baal-sveiny2.jpg?1459813285

Ethereal
07-12-2016, 09:07 PM
And keep in mind, this is only counting foreign people who were killed. There are also the thousands of American military personnel who were killed.

http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2009/02/26/pentagonx.jpg

maineman
07-12-2016, 09:08 PM
is there some proportionality in the way you fix the death count? I mean, in Iraq.... she was one of 77 senators and 297 representatives who voted for. I would think that all of them need to get blamed for their fair share. And... the vote really was only to give Dubya the authorization to go to war with Iraq as a last resort... and clearly he didn't exhaust other resorts... so he needs to own a bunch of them as well. In Libya, Obama needs to own a bunch of them as well. If you could figure out the mathematical formula that would capture that accurate proportioning of those bodies, then, and only then would we have a number that was anything more than partisan flatulence.

Ethereal
07-12-2016, 09:10 PM
is there some proportionality in the way you fix the death count? I mean, in Iraq.... she was one of 77 senators and 297 representatives who voted for. I would think that all of them need to get blamed for their fair share. And... the vote really was only to give Dubya the authorization to go to war with Iraq as a last resort... and clearly he didn't exhaust other resorts... so he needs to own a bunch of them as well. In Libya, Obama needs to own a bunch of them as well. If you could figure out the mathematical formula that would capture that accurate proportioning of those bodies, then, and only then would we have a number that was anything more than partisan flatulence.

I'm partisan? Weren't you just thanking me in another thread for defending Jimmy Carter?

Anyway, when a group of people act in concert and cause a person's death, they are all equally responsible for that death. If three people conspire to murder someone, the justice system doesn't charge them with committing one-third of a murder. Why should it be any different for politicians who act in concert and cause the needless deaths of foreigners?

maineman
07-12-2016, 10:06 PM
I'm partisan? Weren't you just thanking me in another thread for defending Jimmy Carter?

Anyway, when a group of people act in concert and cause a person's death, they are all equally responsible for that death. If three people conspire to murder someone, the justice system doesn't charge them with committing one-third of a murder. Why should it be any different for politicians who act in concert and cause the needless deaths of foreigners?

a non-partisan eats a bowl of partisan beans... what happens? partisan flatulence.

Bush and Bush alone sent our troops into battle and our armament into the homes of Iraqi civilians. I am furious with any democrat who voted for the use of force resolution... but not so furious that I would rather vote for a crazed loon who would undoubtedly drag us into horrible foreign misadventures.

maineman
07-12-2016, 10:12 PM
It has echoes of 2000 for me. I REALLY was hoping for a McCain vs. Bradley election. I was really hoping for the opportunity to go into the polling booth and really really really have to think about which one of two qualified candidates I would vote FOR instead of which one was the obvious choice to vote against. I would have loved to see the democrats nominate Jim Webb and the republicans nominate Jon Huntsman.... two smart, moderate guys who had the brains for real leadership. Instead, I am reduced, yet again, to voting against someone because the one I have to vote for is not all I hoped the nominee could be... or that she could be.

Ethereal
07-12-2016, 10:14 PM
a non-partisan eats a bowl of partisan beans... what happens? partisan flatulence.

So when I'm defending Carter, I'm non-partisan, but when I criticizing Clinton, I suddenly turn into a partisan?

Perhaps you're the one who is suffering from partisan flatulence?


Bush and Bush alone sent our troops into battle and our armament into the homes of Iraqi civilians. I am furious with any democrat who voted for the use of force resolution... but not so furious that I would rather vote for a crazed loon who would undoubtedly drag us into horrible foreign misadventures.

Bush only sent them there because people like Clinton authorized him to do it, so they share responsibility.

maineman
07-12-2016, 10:18 PM
So when I'm defending Carter, I'm non-partisan, but when I criticizing Clinton, I suddenly turn into a partisan?

Perhaps you're the one who is suffering from partisan flatulence? perhaps I would agree with that.


Bush only sent them there because people like Clinton authorized him to do it, so they share responsibility.

but even so... he COULD have waited for Hans Blix to finish his work and tell him that he didn't NEED to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq to disarm them. The world would be a MUCH better place if he had. He could have used our military assets to seek out and destroy AQ everywhere and he would have had the whole world behind him...and he would have had the VAST majority of Americans - me included - with him as well.

Ethereal
07-12-2016, 10:26 PM
perhaps I would agree with that.



but even so... he COULD have waited for Hans Blix to finish his work and tell him that he didn't NEED to invade, conquer and occupy Iraq to disarm them. The world would be a MUCH better place if he had. He could have used our military assets to seek out and destroy AQ everywhere and he would have had the whole world behind him...and he would have had the VAST majority of Americans - me included - with him as well.

Bush made a horrible decision, but he couldn't have made that decision without obtaining authorization from people like Clinton.

maineman
07-12-2016, 10:32 PM
Bush made a horrible decision, but he couldn't have made that decision without obtaining authorization from people like Clinton.

agreed. but in the final analysis, it was HIS decision and HIS ALONE to make. It's lonely at the top.

maineman
07-12-2016, 10:34 PM
the use of force resolution did not demand or require the president to use force.

domer76
07-12-2016, 11:15 PM
Let's see Middle East policy:

We intervene with forces
We intervene without forces
We don't intervene at all.

Tell me, what is the difference other than American lives lost?

Ethereal
07-13-2016, 05:04 PM
agreed. but in the final analysis, it was HIS decision and HIS ALONE to make. It's lonely at the top.

So the Congress is not responsible for their decision to authorize the use of military force against Iraq? It's all Bush's fault?

And it's not like it was one and done. They had to keep voting to finance the occupation.

Common Sense
07-13-2016, 05:05 PM
How did I miss this ridiculous post?

Ethereal
07-13-2016, 05:06 PM
the use of force resolution did not demand or require the president to use force.

If a woman authorizes a hit-man to kill her husband, then she is held just as liable as the hit-man even though the hit-man was not required to kill anyone.

Ethereal
07-13-2016, 05:07 PM
How did I miss this ridiculous post?

What's ridiculous about it?

Ethereal
07-13-2016, 05:07 PM
Let's see Middle East policy:

We intervene with forces
We intervene without forces
We don't intervene at all.

Tell me, what is the difference other than American lives lost?

No idea what this is supposed to mean.

maineman
07-13-2016, 05:15 PM
If a woman authorizes a hit-man to kill her husband, then she is held just as liable as the hit-man even though the hit-man was not required to kill anyone.
wow.

just wow.

be honest.... you couldn't have typed that without giggling, could you?

Common Sense
07-13-2016, 05:16 PM
What's ridiculous about it?

The idea that one person is responsible for those deaths. Even the most irrational Clinton hater would find that sort of ridiculous.

Ethereal
07-13-2016, 05:18 PM
wow.

just wow.

be honest.... you couldn't have typed that without giggling, could you?

How am I wrong?

maineman
07-13-2016, 05:22 PM
"wrong"? it's not even a matter of being wrong... it's just a matter of being silly.

Ethereal
07-13-2016, 05:23 PM
The idea that one person is responsible for those deaths. Even the most irrational Clinton hater would find that sort of ridiculous.

I didn't say one person was responsible. Every political leader who authorized and implemented that war shares responsibility for what happened, including Hillary Clinton. If ten people conspire to murder someone, the legal system doesn't charge them with committing 1/10th of a murder, each person is held individually responsible for the consequences of their actions. So why should politicians be any different?

Ethereal
07-13-2016, 05:23 PM
"wrong"? it's not even a matter of being wrong... it's just a matter of being silly.

Why is it silly?

Common Sense
07-13-2016, 05:23 PM
Yeah and Cordell Hull was responsible for 80 million deaths.

Ethereal
07-13-2016, 05:27 PM
Yeah and Cordell Hull was responsible for 80 million deaths.

So you don't think political leaders are responsible for their actions.

Noted.

And does your analogy imply some kind of moral equivalence between WWII and Iraq/Libya?

Common Sense
07-13-2016, 05:29 PM
So you don't think political leaders are responsible for their actions.

Noted.

And does your analogy imply some kind of moral equivalence between WWII and Iraq/Libya?

My post wasn't an analogy, it was sarcasm.

Ethereal
07-13-2016, 05:33 PM
My post wasn't an analogy, it was sarcasm.

Whatever it was, it proves nothing.

maineman
07-13-2016, 05:44 PM
actually... to me it proves that, on this topic, you are wanting to argue and attempting to make a point which I find pretty nonsensical at its essence. The world in general, and the middle east in specific is a one big hot mess. In some ways, it's been that way since the arrival of Muhammed, in more concrete ways, it has been that way since Picot-Sykes and Balfour... but whenever it started, a big hot mess is what it is today. It's stuck over there, just over the horizon, on the same marble floating in space where WE live, and the rest of the world, us included, are shaking our heads and trying to figure out how, if at all, we can cool it off and clean it up so we can all continue to live on this marble. Nobody's figured out how to do that right yet, and a lot of people - well meaning people - have only figured out how to do it wrong. Does that mean that those people are incompetent and incapable of leading anyone anywhere? No. It might if there were somebody ELSE on the planet that had figured out how to do it right and those other people willfully ignored them. NOBODY knows how to un-fuck the middle east. Nobody. IMHO.

Common Sense
07-13-2016, 05:47 PM
Whatever it was, it proves nothing.

Agreed. As does your OP.

Oboe
07-13-2016, 05:50 PM
https://s16-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org% 2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F1%2F1c%2FWreaths_at_Arling ton_National_Cemetery.jpg&sp=8a5d01db7f6b36c74942cc3ca593ef6e

Ethereal
07-13-2016, 06:17 PM
actually... to me it proves that, on this topic, you are wanting to argue and attempting to make a point which I find pretty nonsensical at its essence. The world in general, and the middle east in specific is a one big hot mess. In some ways, it's been that way since the arrival of Muhammed, in more concrete ways, it has been that way since Picot-Sykes and Balfour... but whenever it started, a big hot mess is what it is today. It's stuck over there, just over the horizon, on the same marble floating in space where WE live, and the rest of the world, us included, are shaking our heads and trying to figure out how, if at all, we can cool it off and clean it up so we can all continue to live on this marble. Nobody's figured out how to do that right yet, and a lot of people - well meaning people - have only figured out how to do it wrong. Does that mean that those people are incompetent and incapable of leading anyone anywhere? No. It might if there were somebody ELSE on the planet that had figured out how to do it right and those other people willfully ignored them. NOBODY knows how to un-$#@! the middle east. Nobody. IMHO.

The ME was a mess and now it's an even bigger mess because of what the US government did in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. They made a bad situation even worse. And Hillary Clinton was a big reason why. That makes her responsible.

Ethereal
07-13-2016, 06:19 PM
Agreed. As does your OP.

I know this may come as a surprise to you, but simply showing up in a thread and declaring something "ridiculous" does not make it so.

I provided ample evidence demonstrating how many people died in the various military interventions that Clinton supported. And I provided ample logic explaining why she is responsible (along with others) for what happened there.

Where is your evidence? Where is your logic? I don't see any. Just assertions with nothing to support them.

maineman
07-13-2016, 06:48 PM
The ME was a mess and now it's an even bigger mess because of what the US government did in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. They made a bad situation even worse. And Hillary Clinton was a big reason why. That makes her responsible.

my point was: nobody who has stuck their nose into the Middle East has made it any better. Tons of well meaning western diplomats have give yeoman service to the task of trying to un-fuck the area. Nobody has done anything to make it any better. To blame Clinton is silly. Blame everybody, or blame nobody.

Ethereal
07-13-2016, 06:51 PM
my point was: nobody who has stuck their nose into the Middle East has made it any better. Tons of well meaning western diplomats have give yeoman service to the task of trying to un-$#@! the area. Nobody has done anything to make it any better. To blame Clinton is silly. Blame everybody, or blame nobody.

I do blame everybody. But everybody is not running for President.

Debatedrone
07-13-2016, 07:01 PM
There seems to be some confusion over how many deaths Hillary Clinton is responsible for, so I thought there should be a thread to help clarify the issue.

At the very least, she shares responsibility for the deaths of Iraqi and Libyan people who died as a result of the US government's military interventions in those countries.

Conservative estimates of the Iraqi civilian death toll are around 165,000: http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi

Estimates of the death toll in Libya range between 10,000 and 50,000: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure

So even the most conservative estimate has the Clinton death toll at somewhere around 175,000 people.

That's A LOT of dead people.

And this doesn't even examine the role Hillary Clinton's State Department played in the destruction of Syria, the unraveling of the Ukraine, and the Gulf State bombing of Yemen, to say nothing of Afghanistan.

All told, she could be responsible for somewhere close to 700,000 deaths, if not more.

Feel free to provide other estimates of the Clinton death toll.

750,000 is a good round number.

Peter1469
07-13-2016, 09:18 PM
actually... to me it proves that, on this topic, you are wanting to argue and attempting to make a point which I find pretty nonsensical at its essence. The world in general, and the middle east in specific is a one big hot mess. In some ways, it's been that way since the arrival of Muhammed, in more concrete ways, it has been that way since Picot-Sykes and Balfour... but whenever it started, a big hot mess is what it is today. It's stuck over there, just over the horizon, on the same marble floating in space where WE live, and the rest of the world, us included, are shaking our heads and trying to figure out how, if at all, we can cool it off and clean it up so we can all continue to live on this marble. Nobody's figured out how to do that right yet, and a lot of people - well meaning people - have only figured out how to do it wrong. Does that mean that those people are incompetent and incapable of leading anyone anywhere? No. It might if there were somebody ELSE on the planet that had figured out how to do it right and those other people willfully ignored them. NOBODY knows how to un-fuck the middle east. Nobody. IMHO.

Outsiders want to tell them how to solve their problems.... They are not beyond tribalism, outside of Egypt.

maineman
07-13-2016, 09:51 PM
Outsiders want to tell them how to solve their problems.... They are not beyond tribalism, outside of Egypt. I agree... but that hasn't stopped western diplomats, from Picot and Sykes to Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton from trying their best to un-fuck them.

Cigar
07-13-2016, 09:52 PM
There seems to be some confusion over how many deaths Hillary Clinton is responsible for, so I thought there should be a thread to help clarify the issue.

At the very least, she shares responsibility for the deaths of Iraqi and Libyan people who died as a result of the US government's military interventions in those countries.

Conservative estimates of the Iraqi civilian death toll are around 165,000: http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/human/civilians/iraqi

Estimates of the death toll in Libya range between 10,000 and 50,000: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure

So even the most conservative estimate has the Clinton death toll at somewhere around 175,000 people.

That's A LOT of dead people.

And this doesn't even examine the role Hillary Clinton's State Department played in the destruction of Syria, the unraveling of the Ukraine, and the Gulf State bombing of Yemen, to say nothing of Afghanistan.

All told, she could be responsible for somewhere close to 700,000 deaths, if not more.

Feel free to provide other estimates of the Clinton death toll.


About as many as she's convicted of ... :laugh:

How many deaths have you caused?

Peter1469
07-13-2016, 09:59 PM
I agree... but that hasn't stopped western diplomats, from Picot and Sykes to Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton from trying their best to un-fuck them.

And here we are.

And our Neocons assure us that they can get it right this time.

Bo-4
07-14-2016, 10:08 AM
700,000?

Hell, that's getting into Hitler range.

You a funny guy! :D

http://img.ifcdn.com/user_photos/bf3eabecda1e1c4029a2cb6e3532e6d98c9ea839_0.jpg?143 5521688

Ethereal
08-14-2016, 04:40 AM
750,000 is a good round number.

It's also a pretty conservative estimate. I mean, 165,000 deaths in Iraq is probably well below the actual number of deaths that she caused there.

Ethereal
08-14-2016, 04:42 AM
I agree... but that hasn't stopped western diplomats, from Picot and Sykes to Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton from trying their best to un-$#@! them.

And in trying to "unf*ck" them, they've actually made things much, much worse, and caused upwards of 750,000 deaths in the process. Clinton has much blood on her hands.

Ethereal
08-14-2016, 04:46 AM
About as many as she's convicted of ... :laugh:

Bush and Cheney haven't been convicted of anything either, so that must mean they didn't do anything wrong.


How many deaths have you caused?

I'm not sure. I did deploy to Iraq for seven months so I share some responsibility for what happened there as well. But my level of responsibility is nowhere near Clinton's. She was involved in the decision-making process at the highest levels. I was just a young, naive grunt who was tricked by the political class and the corporate media.

Ethereal
08-14-2016, 04:49 AM
And here we are.

And our Neocons assure us that they can get it right this time.

And Clinton shows absolutely no indications that she's learned anything from her repeated failures. She still refuses to admit that Libya was a disaster even though Obama says it was one of the biggest mistakes of his Presidency (I give him credit for admitting that) and she wants to escalate the situation in Syria. Clinton will do whatever the banking cartel and the military-industrial complex tells her to do regardless of how many people it kills or how much money it costs the American taxpayer.

Ethereal
08-14-2016, 04:50 AM
700,000?

Hell, that's getting into Hitler range.

You a funny guy! :D

http://img.ifcdn.com/user_photos/bf3eabecda1e1c4029a2cb6e3532e6d98c9ea839_0.jpg?143 5521688

I don't think it's funny at all. Contributing to the destruction of multiple countries seems rather serious in fact.

Ethereal
08-14-2016, 04:54 AM
So far, no one has actually provided a fact- and logic-based argument for why Hillary Clinton should not be held responsible for these deaths.

All I've heard so far is the effective equivalent of "nuh-uh!" or "she's not the only one!".

The first "argument" requires no response and the second argument operates under the false assumption that acting in concert with other people absolves a person of individual responsibility.

In other words, people are deep denial about the aggressive and violent tendencies of the US government and its leadership and refuse to acknowledge its victims in a meaningful way.

FindersKeepers
08-14-2016, 05:21 AM
And Clinton shows absolutely no indications that she's learned anything from her repeated failures. She still refuses to admit that Libya was a disaster even though Obama says it was one of the biggest mistakes of his Presidency (I give him credit for admitting that) and she wants to escalate the situation in Syria. Clinton will do whatever the banking cartel and the military-industrial complex tells her to do regardless of how many people it kills or how much money it costs the American taxpayer.



I, also, give Obama credit for that. He came into office thinking he could solve the problems of the world and he is smart enough to know when he made something much worse.

Hillary is a dangerous -- very dangerous -- individual. In the past, she's talked about "obliterating" Iran and she's proven (with Libya) that she'll take military action first -- and ask Americans what they think later, or not at all.

Ethereal
08-14-2016, 05:30 AM
I, also, give Obama credit for that. He came into office thinking he could solve the problems of the world and he is smart enough to know when he made something much worse.

I think Obama will have lots of deep regrets about his foreign policy legacy. Like many other Presidents, he was overly deferential to the careerist and corporate elements driving our foreign policy. He probably wishes he go could back and change things.


Hillary is a dangerous -- very dangerous -- individual. In the past, she's talked about "obliterating" Iran and she's proven (with Libya) that she'll take military action first -- and ask Americans what they think later, or not at all.

Her record speaks for itself. She is an inveterate warmonger who wants to escalate tensions with Russia.