News Iraqi group claims over 37,000 civilian toll

[Adam]

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?

 

[Evo]

Moving this to Politics and World Affairs.

 

[Hurkyl]

Okay...

 

[Mattius_]

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...

 

[loseyourname]

Does anyone know of a full-scale war that hasn't resulted in many civilian deaths?

 

[Pyrovus]

Does anyone know of a full-scale war that hasn't resulted in many civilian deaths?

And that justifies the war how?

 

[loseyourname]

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.

 

[JohnDubYa]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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...

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.

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.

 

[JohnDubYa]

No, it didn't get publicised much (not sure why), but the Iraqi military took a real pounding.

And that's a good thing.

 

[Dissident Dan]

And that's a good thing.

My understanding is that the Iraqi military was mostly forced conscripts.

 

[Artman]

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.

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.

 

[loseyourname]

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?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

 

[Dissident Dan]

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 occurence 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.

 

[BobG]

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.

 

[devil-fire]

"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

 

[JohnDubYa]

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.

 

[JohnDubYa]

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.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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?

 

[Dissident Dan]

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.

 

[phoenixy]

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!

 

[humanino]

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.

 

[humanino]

Michael Moore widespread the truth !

 

[Artman]

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.

 

[humanino]

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 !

 

[Artman]

: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.

 

[humanino]

We would not have won such a war.

You can't win it.

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.

 

[Artman]

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.

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.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Iraq is not Vietname. The thing about Vietnam was that no matter how many we killed, there would still be more young men and boys to join the ranks. Look at how many Iraqi troops surrendered in Iraq. We did not need to obliterate them all.

 

[Artman]

Iraq is not Vietname. The thing about Vietnam was that no matter how many we killed, there would still be more young men and boys to join the ranks. Look at how many Iraqi troops surrendered in Iraq. We did not need to obliterate them all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3403534/site/newsweek/

It was the second chopper downed in a week, bringing the week’s U.S. dead to 32 (two more were killed the next day). It was the worst weekly toll since “major combat” ended in May. And in a speech two days earlier, McCain had blasted Rumsfeld for being “irresponsible” and defeatist by talking of handing things over hastily to ill-trained Iraqis. “Iraq is not Vietnam,” McCain said. But Vietnam holds “cautionary lessons.” “We lost in Vietnam because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting, and because we limited the tools at our disposal.” Was the same thing happening in Iraq now?

Please note the line: “We lost in Vietnam because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting, and because we limited the tools at our disposal.” This is the point I was making. We do not want this to drag out.

 

[BobG]

I'm not sure how you keep this from dragging out if your goal is a stable democracy in Iraq.

Afghanistan or the first Gulf War is a better example of a traditional war. You go after an identifiable enemy, beat the hell out of them, go home when you're done (except for Afghanistan where for some reason we feel like we have an obligation to replace the government we took out - it might be nice to have a stable government in Afghanistan since it reduces the chance of a new terrorist haven, but a new Afgani government wasn't necessary for the war to be successful).

Our goal in Iraq was specifically to replace a dictator with a democracy. I'm not sure how realistic a goal that is, but the building democracy part in a country where Hussein eliminated just about anyone capable of replacing him is going to take a long time and it's not something that can be accomplished by taking out this target or that target.

 

[Adam]

So I guess the preference is to believe whichever number is highest right? That's real scientific...

Please quote me saying which number I believe.

Certainly yes. Probably not - after just losing your family, most people become quite irrational. Only real difference is that this death toll (even if you assume the worst) is significantly lower than most other wars. Times are changing.

1) A single innocent death is too many.

2) In my opinion, the motive is not humanitarian, but simply profit for the defence contractors.

Sounds about right - with 95,000+ being military deaths.

1) Source?

2) Do you think that is a good thing?

 

[Adam]

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.

Unlike you, the sources I mentioned have some support for their assertions. Believe it or not, you are not in any way credible. They are, by varying degrees.

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,

If I come into your house and break your legs, and point a gun at your head, and make you agree to wear a dress and spank yourself silly with spaghetti every day for the next fifteen years, then leave, would you do as you had agreed to do? Here, agreements made under duress are not binding.

has allowed terrorist operations to continue within their borders,

Heck, Bushy wasn't able to support this assertion when he said it, but perhaps you're better than him. So what exactly is your evidence, and why didn't Bush have it?

and has ignored UN requests to investigate their compliance with the agreements that allowed Sadaam to stay in power after the Gulf war.

You mean how the IAEA conducted and completed their inspection process, and declared Iraq absolutely free of any attempt to develop nuclear arms?

 

[Adam]

So what? Are American soldiers not supposed to shoot back when attacked because the enemy is mostly draftees?

How about: don't be there in the first place.

 

[Adam]

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.

Wow, an intelligent response. Thanks very much. :D

I agree on many points.

• The USA made a mess of Iraq, and it is now the USA's responsibility to pay for all the damage.
• The people of the USA (and me, now, since John Howard bent over and let Bush drive him every which way) must be prepared for absolute hatred from the relatives of those killed, and for everyone who has any empathy for that cause.
• Anyone whinging about the subject one way or another should be a responsible adult, get out there and vote in the next election. The voter turnout in the USA is terrible. And to me, any decent human votes against a government which is clearly war-like and aggressive.
• I personally do not think this invasion was right, good, justified, or "worth it". I think the USA and allies (including Australia) are now clearly the aggressors, and one of the primary reasons in greed.
• Regarding fighting for something worth fighting for, now, after the mess has been made and the wrongs have been done... As I said, the USA and allies should stay and pay for the damages, fix everything up again. They should also remove every USA (and allied) company from Iraq, to remove any profit for USA businesses. The USA government and people, and allies, should pay for it. Companies wishing to profit from reconstruction should offer bids to the new Iraqi government, and they should be from nations other than the USA and its allies.

 

[Adam]

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?

This might be interesting. What do you think is the reason for it?

 

[studentx]

As I said, the USA and allies should stay and pay for the damages, fix everything up again.

When did u say this? Oh wait , i see it:

How about: don't be there in the first place.

 

[Adam]

Studentx, are you on drugs? How does my statement that the USA should never have gone there in any way negate the idea that they should fix what they broke? It's a simple question. Just focus, stay fixed on this one thing, and try to answer it.

 

[studentx]

how does my statement in any way mean that that your statements negate each other?

 

[JohnDubYa]

This might be interesting. What do you think is the reason for it?

To KILL. Isn't that obvious?

Adam, if you really think you are going to score points by noting that in war we killed many of the enemy, keep on trying. Those that backed the war, such as myself, already know damn well that we killed many enemy soldiers and are quite comfortable with it. The reason? We think that the plusses outweigh the minusses, but we have already hashed that argument in other threads.

Yes, it is a shame that people have to die in war. But as long as war exists, I would rather the enemy die than our own troops.

 

[Adam]

I did not ask what happens in war. I asked what you think the reason is for what happens.

 

[JohnDubYa]

I did not ask what happens in war. I asked what you think the reason is for what happens.

Oh, so you're looking for the physics of gunpowder and how an explosion can damage biological material. Well, why didn't you say so?

 

[Adam]

Will you answer?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Well, I think the physics of gunpowder is pretty straightforward: A chemical is ignited, transforming the potential energy stored in the chemical bonds into kinetic energy of the expulsed fragments and thermal energy... are you sure this is the right forum?

 

[Artman]

I did not ask what happens in war. I asked what you think the reason is for what happens.

What?

Adam, what are you trying to say here?

As far as I can tell, the main thrust of this thread is to accuse persons who are not opposed to this war of not believing death toll figures coming from Iraqi sources, simply because the source is Iraqi. Well Adam, should we? Are these sources accurate? Can you say without a doubt that this source, in a country that does not necessarily have a free press, has reported these figures as accurately as possible?

My country is at war with Iraq, so no, I do not believe these figures are accurate. I would much rather see figures from a nonaligned third party.

 

[russ_watters]

I would much rather see figures from a nonaligned third party.

Speaking of which, does anyone know if the International Red Cross has done any research into this?

 

[Adam]

http://www.redcross.int/EN/mag/magazine2003_2/focus.html

Other Red Cross stuff:
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/iraq?OpenDocument

 

[loseyourname]

Is there a piece in there with civilian casualty figures? All I can find are POW's.