Iraqi group claims over 37,000 civilian toll

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Adam
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Group
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the claims made by an Iraqi political group regarding the civilian death toll during the US-led invasion of Iraq from March to October 2003. Participants explore the implications of these figures, the credibility of sources, and the justification of the war in light of civilian casualties, touching on historical contexts and moral considerations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the credibility of Iraqi organizations due to perceived biases, suggesting that being "un-American" affects their reliability.
  • There are references to varying death tolls, with one participant citing a figure of over 37,000 civilian deaths and others mentioning a Pentagon claim of 100,000 deaths.
  • Participants discuss the nature of civilian casualties in war, questioning whether high death tolls can ever justify military action.
  • Some argue that the context of civilian deaths in Iraq is not unique, as many wars have resulted in significant civilian casualties.
  • There is a contention about whether the removal of Saddam Hussein justifies the war, with some asserting that the conditions for war were not met and that the aftermath may have worsened the situation.
  • Concerns are raised about the portrayal of military casualties and the potential masking of true numbers, suggesting that the narrative around the war may be influenced by political motives.
  • Participants express differing views on the morality of targeting conscripted soldiers, with some arguing that they are victims of the regime and others asserting that soldiers should respond to attacks regardless of their conscription status.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion features multiple competing views regarding the credibility of sources, the justification of the war, and the implications of civilian death tolls. There is no consensus on these issues, and participants express a range of opinions and interpretations.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various sources and figures, but there is uncertainty regarding the accuracy of these claims. The discussion includes assumptions about the motivations behind military actions and the impact of war on civilian populations, which remain unresolved.

Adam
Messages
65
Reaction score
1
An Iraqi political group says more than 37,000 Iraqi civilians were killed between the start of the US-led invasion in March 2003 and October 2003.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/66E32EAF-0E4E-4765-9339-594C323A777F.htm

Well, what say you? Are Iraqi organisations somehow automatically not credible due to being... un-American, or something?

If true, or even if you go by the bodycount listed at www.iraqbodycount.net, or some other body count, is it all justified because "Saddam was bad, mkay"? If yes, would you consider it all justified and good if your own family had been splattered all over the nieghbourhood by the cruise missiles and bombs?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Moving this to Politics and World Affairs.
 
Okay...
 
Just as American forces were preparing to enter baghdad over a year ago the pentagon had already claimed 100,000 iraqi deaths, military and civililan. I got that from the O'Reilly factor, too bad they were forced to delete the record of that quote, and that the colonel who told bill was never seen on Fox news again...
 
Does anyone know of a full-scale war that hasn't resulted in many civilian deaths?
 
loseyourname said:
Does anyone know of a full-scale war that hasn't resulted in many civilian deaths?

And that justifies the war how?
 
It doesn't either justify or injustify it. I'm just trying to figure out how a civilian death-toll makes this any different from every war that's taken place in the last 80 years.
 
If true, or even if you go by the bodycount listed at www.iraqbodycount.net, or some other body count, is it all justified because "Saddam was bad, mkay"?

Saddam was just "bad"? I really don't think you understand just how cruel this man really was?

If yes, would you consider it all justified and good if your own family had been splattered all over the nieghbourhood by the cruise missiles and bombs?

If my own family had been splattered, then I would be unable to provide anything close to an objective viewpoint on the issue.
 
Adam said:
Well, what say you? Are Iraqi organisations somehow automatically not credible due to being... un-American, or something?

If true, or even if you go by the bodycount listed at www.iraqbodycount.net, or some other body count...
So I guess the preference is to believe whichever number is highest right? That's real scientific... :rolleyes:
is it all justified because "Saddam was bad, mkay"?
Certainly yes.
If yes, would you consider it all justified and good if your own family had been splattered all over the nieghbourhood by the cruise missiles and bombs?
Probably not - after just losing your family, most people become quite irrational.
loseyourname said:
It doesn't either justify or injustify it. I'm just trying to figure out how a civilian death-toll makes this any different from every war that's taken place in the last 80 years.
Only real difference is that this death toll (even if you assume the worst) is significantly lower than most other wars. Times are changing.
Just as American forces were preparing to enter baghdad over a year ago the pentagon had already claimed 100,000 iraqi deaths, military and civililan.
Sounds about right - with 95,000+ being military deaths. No, it didn't get publicised much (not sure why), but the Iraqi military took a real pounding.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
No, it didn't get publicised much (not sure why), but the Iraqi military took a real pounding.

And that's a good thing.
 
  • #11
JohnDubYa said:
And that's a good thing.

My understanding is that the Iraqi military was mostly forced conscripts.
 
  • #12
Adam said:
Well, what say you? Are Iraqi organisations somehow automatically not credible due to being... un-American, or something?

I say there were only 5000 casualties. Am I automatically not credible because I am american? No, but I am not credible because I made the number up.

Adam said:
If true, or even if you go by the bodycount listed at www.iraqbodycount.net, or some other body count, is it all justified because "Saddam was bad, mkay"?

War was not our only method of dealing with Iraq. The country has been under economic sanctions for years. In that time Iraq has still refused to obey the agreements made following the Gulf War, has allowed terrorist operations to continue within their borders, and has ignored UN requests to investigate their compliance with the agreements that allowed Sadaam to stay in power after the Gulf war.
 
  • #13
Dissident Dan said:
My understanding is that the Iraqi military was mostly forced conscripts.

So what? Are American soldiers not supposed to shoot back when attacked because the enemy is mostly draftees?
 
  • #14
I think the point is that conscripts were victims of Saddam and then us. Is this what we call a good solution? In war it is necessary to constantly vilify the enemy or our soldiers won’t fight well. This is loosely quoted from some famous General and I think I have the source somewhere, but the point is that war is always based on lies. Bush would have us believe that this war was different. That is also a lie. The actual cost in lives to them and us is not something favored for discussion – hence the banned pictures of flag draped coffins. That is another lie – a lie of omission. Except for perhaps five six days, I watched the live Pentagon briefings at 4AM every morning during the war. My understanding is that at least 360,000, and maybe as high as 500,000 Iraqi troops were “missing” at the war's end. When this was discussed it was all within the context of how effective the bunker buster bombs had been. I swear to you, the entire press room went silent for a moment. I never heard another thing about this; anywhere. Now, it is possible the 360,000 troops walked home without us noticing but I tent to think not. I suspect that the number of now twice victimized Iraqi troops killed has been masked as another lie.

Hide the torn and shredded bodies of the innocent victims so that the war will have been just!
 
Last edited:
  • #15
The great thing about the bunkerbusters was that the dead were buried when killed - out of sight and out of mind, and no messy corpses to deal with...and no bodies to count.
 
  • #16
loseyourname said:
So what? Are American soldiers not supposed to shoot back when attacked because the enemy is mostly draftees?

What I said was in response to johndubya saying that the Iraqi military taking a "real pouding" was "a good thing". I did not say that American troops should not respond to an attack. My opinion is that the pounding of either country's troops is sad. The occurrence of the war was sad. I doubt that most of the troops killed were any real threat to any of ours.

The whole point of what I said was to counter the villifying of the other side.
 
  • #17
Adam said:
Well, what say you? Are Iraqi organisations somehow automatically not credible due to being... un-American, or something?

If true, or even if you go by the bodycount listed at www.iraqbodycount.net, or some other body count, is it all justified because "Saddam was bad, mkay"? If yes, would you consider it all justified and good if your own family had been splattered all over the nieghbourhood by the cruise missiles and bombs?

IF a war is worth fighting, these aren't incredibly high numbers. For perspective, in World War II, Americans lost 100 dead a day. Virtually all were military personnel. Russia lost 10,000 a day, over half of which were civilians.

Your point is well taken, though. Every war is going to be costly. You better make sure it's worth it before you fight it. If it's a pre-emptive war, as this one was, you better make sure the end result is better than the conditions you started with.

I don't think the conditions for war were met when we went to war - in fact, just about every reason given justifying the war have proved completely off base. I don't think merely removing Saddam makes the world a better place. Invading Iraq created a situation that could be significantly worse than having Saddam as leader.

And we did it while the military was already stretched thin. Your reserves are for temporary surges and your national guard for emergencies. It's not a good sign when the reserves are virtually converted to active duty, not for 'war', but for 'routine' peace keeping.

All in all, invading Iraq is probably the most reckless thing we've ever done.

But, now, thanks to invading Iraq, we do have a war worth fighting for. When you consider the prospects of having three rival groups fighting for control of an oil producing country, only one of which (the Kurds) is really ready for democracy and self-rule (and Saddam can be blamed for the unreadiness for self-rule), we're in a situation where 'Failure is not an option' (even if it is a possibility).

And you notice I said 'we', not Bush. It doesn't matter who actually made the decision or who you voted for last election. If you're participating in the system, you've bought into the system and you're automatically a part of it.

We made the mess. We better stick around until the mess is cleaned up.
 
  • #18
"If it's a pre-emptive war, as this one was, you better make sure the end result is better than the conditions you started with."- BobG

this is why comments like 'its just a part of war that iraq is such a mess now' (or any similer comment used to downplay the injustice) are so objected too
 
  • #19
War is not for the squeamish. Our troops are SUPPOSED to kill the enemy. We don't drop Kleenex on the enemy, we drop bombs. And why do you think that is so?

When a person dies in a car wreck, I don't need to see the body on tv. Such gore serves no purpose. Just tell me that the person died. I understand.
 
  • #20
What I said was in response to johndubya saying that the Iraqi military taking a "real pouding" was "a good thing".

It was a good thing because the more pounding the enemy takes, the less pounding we take. I am amazed that I have to state it.

All in all, invading Iraq is probably the most reckless thing we've ever done.

As opposed to Vietnam.
 
  • #21
JohnDubYa said:
It was a good thing because the more pounding the enemy takes, the less pounding we take. I am amazed that I have to state it.


Wait a minute. The Iraq military is "the enemy"? These are OUR Iraq military that are being pounded BY the enemy! Are you that loopy, or do you just carry a grudge against Iraq?
 
  • #22
JohnDubYa said:
War is not for the squeamish. Our troops are SUPPOSED to kill the enemy. We don't drop Kleenex on the enemy, we drop bombs. And why do you think that is so?

I don't understand how people justify war by stating how gruesome it is. What is the logical process there?

When a person dies in a car wreck, I don't need to see the body on tv. Such gore serves no purpose. Just tell me that the person died. I understand.

Hell, that may prevent some people from driving drunk. Anyway, I think that it is good for people to see the results of governmental actions. Too many people think of it like of like a video game, a righteous, unquestionable quest, or some abstract thing that doesn't concern them.
 
  • #23
http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/9005.html

American people are safer...American people are safer...American people are safer...

Troops well spent!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #24
I'm sorry if I'm not serious enough about that. I recently heard about trials going on because of torture in Iraq. Apparently, a 23 years old girl is being sued for immoral behavior (or so), because a picture of her handling two Iraqi's penis has been found. She is supposed to display a beautiful smile on that picture...
Maybe you are the one not really serious about that.
Let me again say that : torture is a regular behavior during war time. Death sentence is worse than torture. We French people did torture during war in Algeria, even though we do not accept it.
 
  • #25
Michael Moore widespread the truth ! :devil: :mad:
 
  • #26
If you go to war, it is best to win it fast and decisively. When funding is pulled or limitations are placed on the military, such as calling it a "policing action", not a war, you end up with another Vietnam where no one wins.

A fighter pulling his punches just makes the fight go longer, eventually someone is still going to get hurt.
 
  • #27
Artman said:
A fighter pulling his punches just makes the fight go longer, eventually someone is still going to get hurt.


:surprise: :surprise: :surprise: :surprise: :surprise: :surprise: :surprise: :surprise:


Just send a bunch of nuclear weapons. It's more efficient !
 
  • #28
humanino said:
:surprise: :surprise: :surprise: :surprise: :surprise: :surprise: :surprise: :surprise:


Just send a bunch of nuclear weapons. It's more efficient !

The way to win a war is to take away the enemy's ability to wage war. Using nuclear weapons in such a fight would only strengthen their resolve and gain them international support against us. We would not have won such a war.

My point is, if you are going to war, use the amount of force required to win it, not peck away at it.
 
  • #29
Artman said:
We would not have won such a war.
You can't win it.

Artman said:
My point is, if you are going to war, use the amount of force required to win it, not peck away at it.
I totally support this. I'm aware this must be a very sensitive subject. I do not want to be provocative again, I was really opossed to that war from the beginning. I feel time conforting me in this opinion. I am now aware to be irrelevant, because this war IS, de facto, already happening.
 
  • #30
humanino said:
I'm aware this must be a very sensitive subject. I do not want to be provocative again, I was really opossed to that war from the beginning.

No offense taken. I hope that no one here really wants a war. Some of us do feel it was necessary.

humanino said:
I am now aware to be irrelevant, because this war IS, de facto, already happening.

I also like to think that we all hope it will end quickly and the government can be restored to their people and the soldiers can return home.
 

Similar threads

News How Many Iraqi Civilians Have Died Since the 2003 U.S. Invasion?
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
8K
News Why Iraqis Should Boycott the Election
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
News War on Terror: Examining the Politics & Morality
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
13K