[a green flag with a leaf stands above an utopian green city with vegetation and clean energy]
Greenists believe that the world should be a better place for green people, and everyone else too
[an orange fascist-looking star in a gear logo stands above a bleak concrete city]
Orangites believe that the world should only have orange people, and that all greens should be hung
[an orange character speaks smugly, in a bedroom that contains an orangite logo and a greenist/orangite flag]
Me?
I'm a greenist-orangite,
why do you ask?
You are right, I referenced the wrong source. I'm remembering the links from 15years ago when I had this argument with conservatives on Reddit who were pushing the idea that Obama was the worst president ever.
You cannot take a Harvard study about predicted deaths from lack of medical care and then say that reported civilian deaths from war were from indirect.
If you are going with direct civilian killings from Obama then you use the column labeled "Civilians killed as a result of U.S.-led military actions" from the earlier link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001-2021)
For example: "The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) attributed 596 Afghan civilian deaths as having been caused by international-led military forces in 2009, representing about a quarter of the 2,412 Afghan civilian deaths it recorded as having been caused by the war in 2009."
I was including indirect for Obama.
Which is not what I'm saying. I'm only saying that he's the same as the rest. A capitalist warmongerer with a smile who says nice things and acts with decorum, a kinder, gentler machine gun hand.
Also I'd be a little surprised if conservatives actually cared about how many Afghan civilians were killed.
Yes I can? Predicted deaths from lack of medical care are indirect deaths. That's what indirect means.
By all means. However the article only breaks down the stats that way through 2011. 596 + 440 + 207 gives us 1,244. If we assume a constant rate, then we can divide that by 3 to get the average per year and multiply by 8 for his whole term. That gives us an estimate of 3,317. As compared to the 2,300-3,364 direct, confirmed deaths from the US during the Gulf War.
And so finally we have one concrete metric we can compare the two on, and the conclusion is that they're roughly the same. Ofc, those numbers are both very low because of the metric we're using:
Both wars were wars of aggression, wars of choice, that could have been stopped with the stroke of a pen by the president and only the president, so I hold them each responsible for the total number of excess deaths, civilian or military, direct or indirect, Afghan/Iraqi or US. The total death toll for each is well over 100k.
If you ignore it was 8 years vs 4.
And we're still have the "During the nationwide uprisings against the Ba'athist Iraqi government that directly followed the end of the Gulf War in March and April, an estimated 25,000 to 100,000 Iraqis were killed, overwhelmingly civilians.[253]"
That's direct death, not the lack of food/medicine mentioned kn the next paragraph: "A Harvard University study released in June 1991 predicted that there would be tens of thousands of additional Iraqi civilian deaths by the end of"
So ignoring the indirect death there's still 25k direct death added to the bombing deaths.
One is higher than the other.
So there is no difference between Guilani and Mamdani because both have deaths from police action under their leadership? 1 or 100 is the same?