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

News Iraqi group claims over 37,000 civilian toll

  1. Jul 31, 2004 #1
    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: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 31, 2004 #2


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Moving this to Politics and World Affairs.
  4. Jul 31, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  5. Jul 31, 2004 #4
    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...
  6. Aug 1, 2004 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    Does anyone know of a full-scale war that hasn't resulted in many civilian deaths?
  7. Aug 1, 2004 #6
    And that justifies the war how?
  8. Aug 1, 2004 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
  9. Aug 2, 2004 #8
    Saddam was just "bad"? I really don't think you understand just how cruel this man really was?

    If my own family had been splattered, then I would be unable to provide anything close to an objective viewpoint on the issue.
  10. Aug 2, 2004 #9


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    So I guess the preference is to believe whichever number is highest right? That's real scientific... :rolleyes:
    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.
    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: Aug 2, 2004
  11. Aug 3, 2004 #10
    And that's a good thing.
  12. Aug 3, 2004 #11
    My understanding is that the Iraqi military was mostly forced conscripts.
  13. Aug 3, 2004 #12
    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.

    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.
  14. Aug 3, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    So what? Are American soldiers not supposed to shoot back when attacked because the enemy is mostly draftees?
  15. Aug 3, 2004 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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: Aug 3, 2004
  16. Aug 3, 2004 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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.
  17. Aug 3, 2004 #16
    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.
  18. Aug 3, 2004 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
  19. Aug 4, 2004 #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
  20. Aug 4, 2004 #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.
  21. Aug 4, 2004 #20
    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.

    As opposed to Vietnam.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Discussions: Iraqi group claims over 37,000 civilian toll
  1. The civilians of Iraq (Replies: 24)

  2. 320 000 000 000 kWh/day (Replies: 16)