Iraqi group claims over 37,000 civilian toll

[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.

 

[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.