Iraqi group claims over 37,000 civilian toll

[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.

 

[russ_watters]

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

Could you quote for me the portion of that story that contains the casualty figures? Or should I just assume the Red Cross has none?

 

[JohnDubYa]

It looks to me like Captain Irrelevant struck again.

 

[Adam]

I guess several of you missed this passage:

Thousands of people were killed or wounded, many of who were unable to receive prompt medical care, while numerous towns were left without water and electricity.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Ha! He boldfaces the part of the sentence mentioning "killed," but doesn't boldface "or wounded."

I had always wondered what happened to Baghdad Bob.

 

[Adam]

FFS. You can read, yes?

 

[loseyourname]

"Thousands" isn't really what I meant by "figure." I can't speak for Russ. If that's true, though, I don't see how that equates to 37,000.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess several of you missed this passage:

Maybe I'm still missing it: what is the number? Damn, I guess I need to get my eyes checked. Maybe I just can't tell the difference between a word and a number - could you write it out in number form for me...?

Yeah, loseyourname, we're on the same page here.

 

[JohnDubYa]

FFS. You can read, yes?

Absolutely, which is why I can see through your lame attempts to mislead.

 

[Adam]

The number they list there is: multiples of a thousand. Other places are more specific, as previously mentioned. Try that group mentioned at the start of the thread, or www.iraqbodycount.net, or others. Personalyl I think one innocent death is too many, but each to their own.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Multiples of a thousand (which could be a mere 2000) dead or wounded. The title of this thread concerns the DEATH count.

Try that group mentioned at the start of the thread, or www.iraqbodycount.net, or others. Personalyl I think one innocent death is too many, but each to their own.

The number of named and identified deaths according to your source? 692.

By the way, if you visit the database from which they compiled their figures you come across an interesting item: an inordinate number of casualties occurred due to roadside bombs.

Insurgents are treated as civilians from what I can tell.

Also there appears to be possible double counting. One tabulation of casualties took place via body count at the Baghdad Morgue. But the previous entries six of eight entries listed deaths occurring in Baghdad. It is very possible, maybe even likely, that these are the same bodies. In fact, as you scan the table it appears to me that much of the body counts were in fact double counted.

One of the biggest problems with the scorekeeping is that sources are listed, but there is no indication of whether the statements are firsthand.

 

[russ_watters]

The number they list there is: multiples of a thousand. Other places are more specific, as previously mentioned. Try that group mentioned at the start of the thread, or www.iraqbodycount.net, or others. Personalyl I think one innocent death is too many, but each to their own.

Still not seeing any number in there. It'd be a whole lot simpler for you if you just admit there aren't any and you posted an irrelevancy to answer an honest question.

 

[member 5645]

(Iraqis deaths from 1991-2003)-(Iraqi deaths from 2003-present)=X

If X => 0 THEN
WAR = RIGHT
SANCTIONS = WRONG
GOTO END
ELSE
IF X < 0 THEN
WAR = WRONG
SANCTIONS = RIGHT
END IF
END

 

[Artman]

(Iraqis deaths from 1991-2003)-(Iraqi deaths from 2003-present)=X

If X => 0 THEN
WAR = RIGHT
SANCTIONS = WRONG
GOTO END
ELSE
IF X < 0 THEN
WAR = WRONG
SANCTIONS = RIGHT
END IF
END

Sorry, but the sanctions have been blamed for perhaps a million Iraqi deaths. Sadaam blamed the USA for the sanctions and the USA blamed Sadaam for not obeying the ceasefire agreements. Actually if the war brings an end to the sanctions, that alone would be a good reason to have fought it.


http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20011203&s=cortright

 

[JohnDubYa]

You are mistaken. The correct formula should be

(Iraqis deaths from 1991-2003)-(Iraqi deaths from 2003-present) - (extrapolated Iraqi deaths from Saddam Hussein regime 2003-present) =X

 

[devil-fire]

I can really see why Iraqi people wouldn’t like Americans if they (Americans) consider it ok to kill Iraqis depending on how many have already died

There may (although the subject of "may" is a different topic) be humanitarian reasons for all this business in Iraq, but the collateral damage is bad there. How humanitarian is it when the victims continue to suffer?

This question is just in regards to the idea that the current war is progress or otherwise positive for Iraq

 

[Adam]

Good grief. This is pathetic.

 

[JohnDubYa]

The only thing pathetic is your inabilty to post relevant information.

There may (although the subject of "may" is a different topic) be humanitarian reasons for all this business in Iraq, but the collateral damage is bad there.

Define "bad." I think the US military has bent over backwards to ensure a minimum number of civilian casualties, which is not the usual approach of armies. And by fighting out of uniform, using their own civilians as shields, and planting roadside bombs, the Iraqi nutcases have made it increasingly difficult to avoid collateral damage.

 

[devil-fire]

your right, it could be worse if just everything that gave a soldier a bad vibe was shot but its still far from good

 

[member 5645]

Actually if the war brings an end to the sanctions, that alone would be a good reason to have fought it.


http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20011203&s=cortright

I agree fully.

 

[member 5645]

You are mistaken. The correct formula should be

(Iraqis deaths from 1991-2003)-(Iraqi deaths from 2003-present) - (extrapolated Iraqi deaths from Saddam Hussein regime 2003-present) =X

Well that works too.
It seems everyone,except the complete nutters, think that Saddam was a bad man who needed to be taken care of. The argument often comes over whether the war came too soon. Not even including Saddam's actions before sanctions, I feel there is ample evidence supporting a war. This is due to the result it will have for Americans, Iraqis, and the world.

I can bring the entire situation down to a moral issue of "Is it morally right to take lives if it saves many more?"
This is the crux of the argument, despite the many attempts to rationalize peoples' emotions with 'facts' that are innaccurate.