Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Death Toll Reaches 2000

  1. Oct 25, 2005 #1

    Art

    User Avatar

    Maybe this is a good time for Bush to stop and rethink the path he has chosen with regard to ME policy in general and Iraq in particular.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4372634.stm
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 25, 2005 #2
    I don't think 2000 means anything different than 1999 or 2001, personally.

    But, hitting that number causes a lot of interesting comments to come out, some of which I find far more distressing than the 2000 "mark" itself:

    http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,17039751%5E23109,00.html

    It would appear that our actions were part of the creation of this "brutal" enemy.

    http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-22-04-2.html

    Not to mention that democracy doesn't seem to be what we are "cooperating" with Iraq to achieve:

    http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-22-04-2.html

    .... and I wonder if the irony of all this occurs to Bush?

    (FTR I am not advocating pullout or not. I am making the point that Bush is not addressing some rather large elephants, in his comments.)
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2005
  4. Oct 25, 2005 #3

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Of course this number does not reflect the high number of wounded. The 1,000 mark had no effect, so aside from a day or two of news attention, the 2,000 mark will have little effect as well. Perhaps when it reaches 5,000? Because then Bush will have killed as many of his own people as Saddam gassed to death. :yuck:
     
  5. Oct 25, 2005 #4
    You don't think that's stretching the truth just a bit too far?
     
  6. Oct 25, 2005 #5

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9777092/

    Now that was stretching the truth just a bit too far, hum?
     
  7. Oct 25, 2005 #6
    How does that make it ok for you to stretch the truth? If you hate Bush then don't act like him.
     
  8. Oct 26, 2005 #7

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Exactly--that's the point. If you link to the article you would read: "5,000 believed to have been gassed" and the point is people condemn Saddam for killing his own people, but don't make the same connection to the sad loss of American lives in this unnecessary war--because of Bush.
     
  9. Oct 26, 2005 #8

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    5000 is the most reported number

    She may have been stretching the truth but was more likely thinking of the "Human Rights Watch" report:

    5000 gassed
    289,000 killed in a less humane fashion. (my words added for effect)
     
  10. Oct 26, 2005 #9
    How were the others killed? Bombings, etc? Mostly kurds? I'm ignorant on these details.
     
  11. Oct 26, 2005 #10

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Google "Human Rights Watch" but ignore the large number of innocents killed by the Clinton embargo and bombings. Instead, try to select the deaths attributed to Saddam. Hope that helps!
     
  12. Oct 26, 2005 #11

    loseyourname

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    You don't think it's stretching the truth a bit to say that Bush killed 5,000 of his own people (or will have, assuming the death toll eventually reaches that number)?
     
  13. Oct 26, 2005 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Also, are you predicting another 2-3 years of this level of fighting, or do you expect it to get considerably more intense?
     
  14. Oct 26, 2005 #13

    SOS2008

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If things could go as desired, there would be military responses on several fronts. What we do know is Bush has said that as long as he is president we will remain in Iraq. How many have we lost each year X 3, and in the next three years there could be escalations with other countries. Other than that, I don't have a crystal ball anymore than anyone else. But taking into account the long-term view and instability that exists worldwide, it is not that far fetched to lose 5,000 Americans, especially when they are not properly equipped.
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2005
  15. Oct 26, 2005 #14
    I'd add that every military leader has indicated that we need to stay in Iraq for 8 - 10 - 12 more years if we wish to "defeat" the insurgency. (We hope that the Iraqis can take over the efforts here, but that part of the plan doesn't seem to be moving ahead very quickly.)

    https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2351

    Given the largely unchanging slope of the line in the graph below, over the last two years,

    http://www.intelligencesquad.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/slide1.jpg

    ...it seems that we may see (assuming things don't escalate, and that we don't pull out) 3000 deaths around christmas next year, 4000 deaths around february 2007, and 5000 deaths around June 2008, an election year.

    The rate of coalition deaths (over 90% of them American) appears to be proceeding at a steady pace over the last two years. I don't know why that would change, if we keep our policy the same. Presumably the insurgency will ultimately be defeated. But if it takes 10 years, then we are talking about 8000 American deaths.

    (And lest we forget, because it's easy to get distracted, defeating an insurgency wasn't the goal when we went in. But the cost and fruits and original goals of this plan, are best left for a different thread. )
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2005
  16. Oct 26, 2005 #15
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Death Toll Reaches 2000
  1. 2000 Election Stolen (Replies: 28)

Loading...