NationStates Jolt Archive

The US government and the coalition have caused the deaths of 100,000 civilians in Iraq. How can this be justified?

Sadddam Hussain and his associates were removed because they killed 300,000 people in their own country. Is it ok to kill 100,000 people in some other country?

If the US had declared war on Iraq, would killing 100,000 civilians be a war crime?

Since the US did not declare war, isn't killing 100,000 civilians terrorism?

To those who think that 100,000 Iraqui lives is a fair price to pay; to pay for what? To depose a government that attacks other countries? To depose a government that kills civilians? To depose a government that might have weapons of mass destruction? Or is it to pay for control of oil fields?

If it is a fair price to pay, what value do you put on human life? Is the life of an Iraqui citizen worth less than the life of a US citizen?

It is a stain on our souls as Americans. We, the people of this nation, allowed this evil to transpire and we, collectively, will have to karmically answer for it.

I thought I read somewhere it was under 20k - not that this is a small insignificant number but 100k is unbelievable.

What references do you provide to support this claus?

it's been proven in other threads that the number is wrong. a gross estimate made by a shoddy and flawed polling technique used to support Anti-American / Anti-Bush people to convince ignorant and gullible people.

Yeah, where's the source of this?
This is the closest thing I've found dated May 23, 2004.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5045166/

Documentation:

Reuters

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20041028/ts_nm/iraq_deaths_dc_4

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1230305.htm

Associated Press

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041028/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_death_toll_3

We already had this BS posted, its from a survey which attempts to find death numbers in the same way a political poll is taken, except that that is a wildly inaccurate way to do it. Even the authors admitted the limited precision to the report.

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," said Les Roberts of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal.
"Conservative assumptions?" "we think"
There is no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began, but some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000

We already had this BS posted, its from a survey which attempts to find death numbers in the same way a political poll is taken, except that that is a wildly inaccurate way to do it. Even the authors admitted the limited precision to the report.

The authors stand by their estimates. If anything they say they are conservative.

"The project was designed by Les Roberts and Gilbert Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York; and Riyadh Lafta and Jamal Kudhairi of the Al-Mustansiriya University College of Medicine in Baghdad.

Based on the number of Iraqi fatalities recorded by the survey teams, the researchers calculated that the death rate had increased from 5 percent annually to 7.9 percent since the invasion. That works out to an excess of about 100,000 deaths since the war, the researchers reported in a paper released early by the Lancet, a British medical journal.

The researchers called their estimate conservative because they excluded deaths in Fallujah, a city west of Baghdad that has been the scene of particularly intense fighting and accounted for a disproportionately large number of the deaths in the survey.

"We are quite confident that there's been somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths, but it could be much higher," Roberts said."

Analysis estimates 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq war
ROB STEIN
The Washington Post

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/news/local/10042479.htm

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=97712&region=6

The authors acknowledge the limited precision of the report.

The size of the sample and the sampling strategy “might not have captured the overall mortality experience in Iraq,” they said.

so to make sure they capture the true mortality rate, they use an incredably large number. I'm sure the true number of fatalities are in that estimate... somewhere between 1 and 100,000.

100,000 is an estimate that is on the news, but does a variation in the actual number affect the moral issues?

If Iraqui civilian deaths are justified because their government killed 300,000 civilians; would the coalition actions be immoral if the Iraqui government had only killed 250,000?

I have to ask myself the same question, to be fair. Would I have started this discussion if it had been reported that 20,000 civilians had been killed?
Even 20,000 deaths is too many.

I would like a discussion of the moral issues, not numbers. How can the civilian deaths be morally justified?

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=97712&region=6

The authors acknowledge the limited precision of the report.

The size of the sample and the sampling strategy “might not have captured the overall mortality experience in Iraq,” they said.

Yes, they admit it could be larger. "We are quite confident that there's been somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths, but it could be much higher."

Do you have a vested interest in the final number of civilian men, women, and children we have killed. Will you sleep better if we only killed 15,000 instead of 100,000?

Yes, they admit it could be larger. "We are quite confident that there's been somewhere in the neighborhood of 100,000 deaths, but it could be much higher."

Do you have a vested interst in the final number of civilian men, women, and children we have killed. Will you sleep better if we only killed 15,000 instead of 100,000?
Yes. All of the killing is bad, however, looking at Iraq Body Count, hardly an pro-war or pro-Bush website, the report is off by five times the actual number.

Yes. All of the killing is bad, however, looking at Iraq Body Count, hardly an pro-war or pro-Bush website, the report is off by five times the actual number.

Or the web site has underestimated by five times the actual number.

sorry for misunderstanding the purpose of the thread. :p

War has different Morals. We (Americans and I hope all Civilized countries) try to minimize Civilian casualties. But when one cannot tell the combatants from the Non-Combatants, (the insurgents don't wear uniforms or any markings what so ever) there will be more casualties than any other war.

and remember, Saddam caused his people's deaths due to difference of opinions, and to test his weapons... for the most part anyway.

the real question (i think) is how the war is being fought. Insurgents are using bombs in public areas, attaking from Religous Buildings and civilian homes, forcing the Soldiers to shoot back or duck and cover. As long as the attacks occure with Civilians around, there will be alot of civilian casualties.

Remember, in Kuait, Saddam was famous for placing his AAA guns, scud missile launchers and Military command posts in housing developments and schools knowing he could use those destructions to further anti-Americanisms.

I don't see anyone questioning the morals of the insurgents walking in a crowded street and blowing everyone there up? Or shooting from Religious buildings?

Or the web site has underestimated by five times the actual number.
You can believe 66,000 people have died in Fallujah since the war started if it makes you sleep better.

100,000 civilians died? Now it's 500,000? Don't these numbers seem a little skewed to anybody else? Please look at the sources of your information next time. If it seems like statistics were pulled out of somebody's a**, they were. These days, it seems that people are using all the muscles except the one that really matters...

You can believe 66,000 people have died in Fallujah since the war started if it makes you sleep better.

This website you place so much faith in, Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) has done a fine job in an area that has been grossly under reported. However, they state themselves that their casualty figures are "derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media reports." To be recorded a civilian death must be reported by two of their media sources (which are predominantly Western). It is highly likely that many deaths have gone unreported by the media.

The recent John Hopkins report is one of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the war in Iraq.

100,000 civilians died? Now it's 500,000? Don't these numbers seem a little skewed to anybody else? Please look at the sources of your information next time. If it seems like statistics were pulled out of somebody's a**, they were. These days, it seems that people are using all the muscles except the one that really matters...

No one is reporting 500,000. The first attempt to independently estimate the number of civilian Iraqi deaths, which came up with the 100,000 figure, was conducted by Les Roberts and Gilbert Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York; and Riyadh Lafta and Jamal Kudhairi of the Al-Mustansiriya University College of Medicine in Baghdad.

Hardly pulled out of somebody's ass.

I think the fact that the annual death rate has rised at all since we have come is a bad thing. Less people were dying under saddam. Iraq was defidentally more stable under Saddam. A large number of people want Saddam back, despite the media saying how much they all hate him.

This website you place so much faith in, Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) has done a fine job in an area that has been grossly under reported. However, they state themselves that their casualty figures are "derived solely from a comprehensive survey of online media reports." To be recorded a civilian death must be reported by two of their media sources (which are predominantly Western). It is highly likely that many deaths have gone unreported by the media.

The recent John Hopkins report is one of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the war in Iraq.
This survey has taken 988 households, in only 33 neighborhoods, and attempted to apply it to the entire country. With conditions varying as widely as they do in Iraq, its quite clear for anyone who cares to look that this is most likely very inaccurate with such a small sample size.

I think the fact that the annual death rate has rised at all since we have come is a bad thing. Less people were dying under saddam. Iraq was defidentally more stable under Saddam. A large number of people want Saddam back, despite the media saying how much they all hate him.

Yeah, Absolute fear does keep people in line... also check out who wants Saddam back. it's those that stand the most to loose because any Democratic system won't pamper them anymore.

As Iakeokeo would say, "As history progresses in the coming years, the "civilian" deaths of Iraq will be seen as a minor wound suitable for some bactine and a band-aid." :rolleyes:

As Iakeokeo would say, "As history progresses in the coming years, the "civilian" deaths of Iraq will be seen as a minor wound suitable for some bactine and a band-aid." :rolleyes:


or like any tall tale it may move in the opposite direction, the Giant Devel Bush leveled all of Iraq's cities, raped and killed the women and gutted the children... all by himself.

The US government and the coalition have caused the deaths of 100,000 civilians in Iraq. How can this be justified?

Sadddam Hussain and his associates were removed because they killed 300,000 people in their own country. Is it ok to kill 100,000 people in some other country?

If the US had declared war on Iraq, would killing 100,000 civilians be a war crime?

Since the US did not declare war, isn't killing 100,000 civilians terrorism?

To those who think that 100,000 Iraqui lives is a fair price to pay; to pay for what? To depose a government that attacks other countries? To depose a government that kills civilians? To depose a government that might have weapons of mass destruction? Or is it to pay for control of oil fields?

If it is a fair price to pay, what value do you put on human life? Is the life of an Iraqui citizen worth less than the life of a US citizen?

The US did declare war, their first attack was made before war was declared in hopes of decapitating the leadership but it did in fact happen. Just because the corrupted UN didnt ask us to attack doesnt mean it was illegal.

Also, INCLUDING deaths caused by collateral damage and terrorists (and also at least one casualty attributed to heart attack,) the figure is only about 21,000. Excluding them it drops as low as 300. Note that not all "civilians" are innocent unarmed citizens. They just do not belong to military forces.

Its NOT justifiable by the fact that aid organizations are now operating independantly of government corruption, and that new infrastructure is being built. Sure, we see reports of kidnapping and sabotage almost daily but people ignore that things have in fact improved and many people there have been helped by US forces and engineers, sometimes in person.

To be blunt, the civilian deaths cannot be justified but they were not dishonorable deaths. We will have to learn and mourn, and look for a brighter future, where less such deaths will be necessary.

or like any tall tale it may move in the opposite direction, the Giant Devel Bush leveled all of Iraq's cities, raped and killed the women and gutted the children... all by himself.
I think it will end up somewhere between the two extremes, much like Vietnam.

This survey has taken 988 households, in only 33 neighborhoods, and attempted to apply it to the entire country. With conditions varying as widely as they do in Iraq, its quite clear for anyone who cares to look that this is most likely very inaccurate with such a small sample size.

The science of statistics (and polling) attempts to get information from a few people and use it to learn about the larger population. This is done all the time for product testing, to determine insurance rates, and, most familiar to us, political polling. Yes, statistical analysis does have its problems ranging from question bias and the manipulation of data to sloppy interpretation. However, it has long since been proven that sampling a small group of people can provide accurate information about the larger society.

So, the question becomes, is there some reason to doubt the methodology or bias of these particular academics in their attempt to determine the number of civilians killed? The institutions involved (Columbia and John Hopkins) have solid academic reputations and their report was subjected to peer review before being published in The Lancet, an established British medical journal. They have called for further confirmation by an independent body such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the World Health Organization.

If you know of some stain on their reputations or have evidence of political bias, by all means I am ready to hear it. However, to simply dismiss their report based on the fact that they used statistical analysis presupposes that all statistics and polling is unreliable.

The US did declare war, their first attack was made before war was declared in hopes of decapitating the leadership but it did in fact happen. Just because the corrupted UN didnt ask us to attack doesnt mean it was illegal.


Actually war was declared before the attack, The first strike, however was hours away from the deadline in hopes that a quick killing of Saddam would've shortened the war. (yeah right.)

The science of statistics (and polling) attempts to get information from a few people and use it to learn about the larger population. This is done all the time for product testing, to determine insurance rates, and, most familiar to us, political polling. Yes, statistical analysis does have its problems ranging from question bias and the manipulation of data to sloppy interpretation. However, it has long since been proven that sampling a small group of people can provide accurate information about the larger society.

So, the question becomes, is there some reason to doubt the methodology or bias of these particular academics in their attempt to determine the number of civilians killed? The institutions involved (Columbia and John Hopkins have solid academic reputations) and their report was subjected to peer review before being published in The Lancet, an establish British medical journal. They have called for further confirmation by an independent body such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the World Health Organization.

If you know of some stain on their reputations or have evidence of political bias, by all means I am ready to hear it. However, to simply dismiss their report based on the fact that they used statistical analysis presupposes that all statistics and polling is unreliable.
I am not saying that they are biased or that all statistics and polling unreliable. I'm saying that trying to apply such methods to casualty counting is. If further studies can back up this number, I'll believe it, but until now, I don't think its worth my time. Sampling 1000 people may be accurate to determine the political learnings in an area, however, this does not mean that it will be accurate in trying to find out death counts in a country.

The US government and the coalition have caused the deaths of 100,000 civilians in Iraq. How can this be justified?
Do you people bother to reseach this crap or are you so blinded by your idealogy that you will paper this site with this garbage, even if it is wrong? This is asinine.

I don't see anyone questioning the morals of the insurgents walking in a crowded street and blowing everyone there up? Or shooting from Religious buildings?

A very good point indeed. I can understand Iraqui's operating as a guerilla force against the armies that have invaded their country, but that does not justify them killing their own people.

However, from the news reports here in Australia; most of the civilian deaths result from air strikes and bombings. It seems that the US military consider it acceptable to kill large numbers of civilians?

I was under the impression that targeting civilians was a war crime.
At the very least this is a case of wrongful death, which would be prosecuted as manslaughter if it was not a military action. Governments should be judged by the same standards that they apply to their people.

If the civilian casualties were factored into the planning, then the strategy and tactics are immoral. If not, then the military are incompetent.

Do you people bother to reseach this crap or are you so blinded by your idealogy that you will paper this site with this garbage, even if it is wrong? This is asinine.

If you bothered to read previous posts before flaming you would see that a good deal of reading and research has been done in support of this discussion thread. Your post reflects more on your own lack of research and understanding (and perhaps blind ideology) than those participating in this conversation.

Please refrain from posting unless you have something to contribute to the discussion. Your post was as meaningful as a fart in an elevator.
Please refrain from posting if you have your facts and your ass mixed up. There have not been 100,000 innocent dead in Iraq.

If you bothered to read previous posts before flaming you would see that a good deal of reading and research has been done in support of this discussion thread. Your post reflects more on your own lack of research and understanding (and perhaps blind ideology) than those participating in this conversation.
Oh, I read it. It is about as factual as the hitler diaries. Get a clue.

Oh, I read it. It is about as factual as the hitler diaries. Get a clue.


This is a discussion thread that has included numerous citations documenting various opinions as well as a debate over a report compiled by respected academics from two of America's most prestigious universities. Exactly how much factual support do you expect on an internet bulletin board?

Keep in mind that you yourself have offered nothing to the discussion beyond name calling.

I would like to point out that this poll is not saying that the amount of deaths has been at least 100,000 people but that 100,000 more people were killed due to the Invasion than the amount who would have died had Sadaam remained in power. Therefore not only can you not say that America has saved lives, you can say that America has almost doubled the death rate.

I'd also like to say that Bush supports segragation so there is no way you can say that he is bringing freedom to other countries across the world when he is destroying freedom here in America.
Bush: The model of Justices i would appoint is Antonin Scalia.(Not Exact Quote)
Scalia: Segragation was a good idea, executed badly.(Almost exact words)

A very good point indeed. I can understand Iraqui's operating as a guerilla force against the armies that have invaded their country, but that does not justify them killing their own people.

However, from the news reports here in Australia; most of the civilian deaths result from air strikes and bombings. It seems that the US military consider it acceptable to kill large numbers of civilians?

I was under the impression that targeting civilians was a war crime.
At the very least this is a case of wrongful death, which would be prosecuted as manslaughter if it was not a military action. Governments should be judged by the same standards that they apply to their people.

If the civilian casualties were factored into the planning, then the strategy and tactics are immoral. If not, then the military are incompetent.

Please take into account that as insurgents, they hold their meetings and planning stages in civilian areas. Unlike formal Military personnel who will use military locations (to remove the possibility of anyone targeting civilians trying to get them) to strike an insurgent Hideout is to target civilian areas. Sad fact is that civilians are the ultimate loosers in war. but it's worse when they are used as shields and their deaths... propaganda.

100,000 is an estimate that is on the news, but does a variation in the actual number affect the moral issues?

If Iraqui civilian deaths are justified because their government killed 300,000 civilians; would the coalition actions be immoral if the Iraqui government had only killed 250,000?

I have to ask myself the same question, to be fair. Would I have started this discussion if it had been reported that 20,000 civilians had been killed?
Even 20,000 deaths is too many.

I would like a discussion of the moral issues, not numbers. How can the civilian deaths be morally justified?

What news? "The news" is such a general term that you may as well provide to source for your information if that's what you're going to claim gives you credibility.

Also, Saddam was responsible for many more than 300,000 deaths as well as the torture of thousands of his own citizens.

You're right, no civilian deaths are "good" but "justified" is another story entirely. If we kill 10,000 innocents and save 100,000 in the process, then while the choice would be difficult the action could be considered justified. In the case of Saddam the number of people likely to be killed or tortured if Saddam had been allowed to stay in power until is death far exceeds the number of casualties, civilian or otherwise, inflicted on the Iraqi population in Iraq since the start of U.S. occupation, and even with the most liberal estimates of future casualties we will never touch the numbers that Saddam would have.

Morality by mathematics?

I am not saying that they are biased or that all statistics and polling unreliable. I'm saying that trying to apply such methods to casualty counting is. If further studies can back up this number, I'll believe it, but until now, I don't think its worth my time. Sampling 1000 people may be accurate to determine the political learnings in an area, however, this does not mean that it will be accurate in trying to find out death counts in a country.

And yet insurance actuaries assemble and analyze data to estimate the occurrence of death routinely. It is how your insurance rates are set.

How is this qualitatively different than trying to estimate civilian deaths in Iraq?

Yeah, Absolute fear does keep people in line... also check out who wants Saddam back. it's those that stand the most to loose because any Democratic system won't pamper them anymore.

You know, I heard Saddam Hussain is a candidate in the Iraqi elections and actually does have a chance. Imagine if he won, which isn't actually so far-fetched. I'd love for that to happen, if only to enjoy the irony.

You know, I heard Saddam Hussain is a candidate in the Iraqi elections and actually does have a chance. Imagine if he won, which isn't actually so far-fetched. I'd love for that to happen, if only to enjoy the irony.


I'll tell ya, if he does win... then the Iraqi People will get exactly what they wanted and should they cry and moan about it, the US can only sit back and wait until the extreme happens.

I'll tell ya, if he does win... then the Iraqi People will get exactly what they wanted and should they cry and moan about it, the US can only sit back and wait until the extreme happens.

Perhaps the US could then sit back, shut up and keep its M16 out of other people's business.

You're right, no civilian deaths are "good" but "justified" is another story entirely. If we kill 10,000 innocents and save 100,000 in the process, then while the choice would be difficult the action could be considered justified. In the case of Saddam the number of people likely to be killed or tortured if Saddam had been allowed to stay in power until is death far exceeds the number of casualties, civilian or otherwise, inflicted on the Iraqi population in Iraq since the start of U.S. occupation, and even with the most liberal estimates of future casualties we will never touch the numbers that Saddam would have.

How do you know 100,000 Iraqis would have been killed by Saddam since March 2003 if not for the war? You do realise that most of the deaths as a result of Saddam's actions resulted from his actions against rebellions? Contrary to popular belief, he was NOT constantly rounding up random people and having them shot/tortured/gassed/fed alive to monsters.

As bad as it is, Saddam's human rights record looks positively glowing compared to some other dictators and leaders in that region I could name. Like the Saud royal family, who run a dictatorial theocratic monarchy where public beheadings are common and whose policies sometimes resemble Taliban Lite. Or the guys over in Iran. Not too long ago Saddam was a good guy because he was fighting Iran. And let's not even get into Israel vs. Palestine, that's just an insane place.

I think Saddam should have stayed in power and I'm not afraid to say it. Of all the nasty rulers in that particular can of worms we call the Middle East, he probably was the least of a threat and the least oppressive.

And as pointed out earlier, does it really make a difference if 10,000 died or if 100,000 died? Is it somehow less bad if you say, "ah, only 10,000 died, it's okay."

In this day and age, we're seperated from the reality of war and I think that has shaped attitudes. During the two World Wars, Europe experienced it first-hand. 1/4 of Canada's entire population died in World War 1. America was relatively untouched and got to sit around and read about glorious victories. I don't think it's a coincidence that America is the most hawkish and ready to lash out at any provocation while European nations always consider war the last resort.

Perhaps the US could then sit back, shut up and keep its M16 out of other people's business.

Yep, we will. And when the Genocides begin because now they will have a list of people who voted and, by process of elimination, know who voted for the other guy, We can look those people in the eye and say "You wanted him... you got him!" And when he goes against France, Germany, and Russia for failing to stop the US and our allies... well, that would be a different story.

I would like a discussion of the moral issues, not numbers. How can the civilian deaths be morally justified?
There is no justification whatsoever for these civilian deaths and I think this is what causes public opinion to be so galvanized in this regard.

There were no WMD.

There were no links to Al-Quiada

There were no Iraqis involved in 9/11.

UN inspections were being conducted and the teams of inspectors were unable to find any WMD. Unfortunately, the Bush administration decided that they were going to invade Iraq, regardless of UN reports, and clearly in violation of the UN Charter.

Moral justification is non existent in this regard. :(

In this day and age, we're seperated from the reality of war and I think that has shaped attitudes. During the two World Wars, Europe experienced it first-hand. 1/4 of Canada's entire population died in World War 1. America was relatively untouched and got to sit around and read about glorious victories. I don't think it's a coincidence that America is the most hawkish and ready to lash out at any provocation while European nations always consider war the last resort.

We lost alot of people too. We lost people liberating ourselves, we lost people when our Nation was divided. We lost alot of people helping a poor nation defend itself, and during the World Wars, our citizens did go to Europe to fight when America declaired Neutratily. However, It's interesting how you describe Our Nation's waryness to enter either World War as sitting around. After all, it Took Pearl Harbor to bring us fully into the Second World War. Yet when our Citizens are attacked and threatened by other countries, suddenly, we're eager for a fight.

To your credit however, I do have a theory on something similar. goes like this.

Can anyone name another Country that was Founded by the Gun? With the Gun we carved out America, With the Gun all our wars were fought. "Older" nations used swords and thus there is an inherent or primal knowledge for them that a fight means to be "close and personal" while America favors the Gun which does the killing from afar and thus not so close... not so personal.

G

We lost alot of people too. We lost people liberating ourselves, we lost people when our Nation was divided. We lost alot of people helping a poor nation defend itself, and during the World Wars, our citizens did go to Europe to fight when America declaired Neutratily.

In the World Wars, Americans lost soldiers. Europe lost civillians, and on a horrific scale. New York and Washington DC weren't bombed by the Germans. Stalingrad and London were. Paris was occupied by Germans. Houston was not.

I'm talking about the difference between watching a war on TV or reading about it in a newspaper and being bombed on a nightly basis.

The US government and the coalition have caused the deaths of 100,000 civilians in Iraq.

A claim that's already been discredited repeatedly. See this thread (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=369426&page=1).

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=370372

with a link to a comphrensive news story on the John Hopkins survey and its flaws, links to the Casualty count site, and additional estimates

bottom line of the MSN story is that roughly 30,000 (at most) civilians have died.

plus 1,000 plus American troops

who knows how many insurgents? Can't find that statistic

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=370372
plus 1,000 plus American troops


I think it's over 1,100 now.

In the World Wars, Americans lost soldiers. Europe lost civillians, and on a horrific scale. New York and Washington DC weren't bombed by the Germans. Stalingrad and London were. Paris was occupied by Germans. Houston was not.

I'm talking about the difference between watching a war on TV or reading about it in a newspaper and being bombed on a nightly basis.

No but it was implyed that we sat back and were feed nothing but "Glorified Victories" while our allies were suffering. The news we received were showing our friends suffering under German Attacks. Our President was ready to go to war (at least for WWII) but what was holding him back was congress not wanting to get involved. supplies were sent (not the same as troops, I know. but at the that was the best we could do.) We could not send troops but I know alot of Americans travelled to Europe to help out. The Europeans reconized what they were doing and thus never referred to them as Americans. untill Japan decided to tip the whole thing and give us an Exscuse... after all, after we pounded Japan, we didn't have to go after Germany with the same fervor... but we did.

Maybe it does make us Hawkish. Maybe it makes us seem like the bully. but remember, Saddam was playing games with the inspectors while they were there. Saddam has years of genocide/torture/and warmongering that went unanswered. His people were crying for help and no one was listening because no one wanted to get involved. The Sanctions were hurting those that Saddam Hated. The Oil for Food program was corrupted to suit Saddam's needs. but no one was saying anything because no one wanted to get involved.

Saddam was playing games with the inspectors while they were there.

Hans Blix's report said that they weren't having many problems with Iraqi compliance, and the conclusions of the weapons inspectors have been borne out by the CIA, a year and thousands of deaths later. I'd say that would be evidence the weapons inspectors weren't being "played with".


Saddam has years of genocide/torture/and warmongering that went unanswered.

Saddam's actions against the rebellions were not genocide. Yes, the deaths were mainly of one group of people, but it was a group of people he was fighting a war against. The Holocaust was genocide. What is happening in Darfur is genocide. Saddam's response to the rebellions doesn't even come close.

His people were crying for help and no one was listening because no one wanted to get involved. The Sanctions were hurting those that Saddam Hated. The Oil for Food program was corrupted to suit Saddam's needs. but no one was saying anything because no one wanted to get involved.

Then you raise the question, why not Burma? Conditions with civil rights and oppression are much worse there than Saddam ever was. Iraqis were probably the most free of the people in the region under Saddam - just look at his neighbours. Why not Saudi Arabia? Why not Iran? The argument that "Oh, Saddam was evil" just doesn't work because there are many regimes that are just as bad, if not worse.

Hans Blix's report said that they weren't having many problems with Iraqi compliance, and the conclusions of the weapons inspectors have been borne out by the CIA, a year and thousands of deaths later. I'd say that would be evidence the weapons inspectors weren't being "played with".

That report came out after the US set the deadline for attack. the inspectors were complaining bout being lead around by their noses and only talking to whom the officials say they could talk to and they were kept sequesterd untill Saddam first kicked them out. Then when they were invited back in Months later... then you get the atmosphere in the Blix Report.


Saddam's actions against the rebellions were not genocide. Yes, the deaths were mainly of one group of people, but it was a group of people he was fighting a war against. The Holocaust was genocide. What is happening in Darfur is genocide. Saddam's response to the rebellions doesn't even come close.

So the weapons used against the camps (Women and Children, not soldiers or training) was perfectly ok?


Then you raise the question, why not Burma? Conditions with civil rights and oppression are much worse there than Saddam ever was. Iraqis were probably the most free of the people in the region under Saddam - just look at his neighbours. Why not Saudi Arabia? Why not Iran? The argument that "Oh, Saddam was evil" just doesn't work because there are many regimes that are just as bad, if not worse.

Ok, I'll admit I did not hear about the people of Burma crying for US intervention for over 10+ years.

That report came out after the US set the deadline for attack. the inspectors were complaining bout being lead around by their noses and only talking to whom the officials say they could talk to and they were kept sequesterd untill Saddam first kicked them out. Then when they were invited back in Months later... then you get the atmosphere in the Blix Report.

But that doesn't change the fact that there were no weapons does it? And that doesn't change the fact that Saddam told the truth - he maintained he had no weapons, and Bush lied - he insisted Saddam did while knowing his intelligence was dodgy, does it?

So the weapons used against the camps (Women and Children, not soldiers or training) was perfectly ok?

Of course not, but do you remember the original topic in this thread? "100,000 civilian deaths in iraq"? Even if that number isn't accurate, the fact remains that women and children were killed by Bush too. Is that okay too? And wasn't the original, actual reason for the war that he had banned weapons? That he was a danger?

Ok, I'll admit I did not hear about the people of Burma crying for US intervention for over 10+ years.

Then read up on the Burma military dictatorship. They make Saddam's Iraq look like a shining beacon of human rights. If the US wanted to invade a country to "free its people", that's where they should've gone.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=370372

with a link to a comphrensive news story on the John Hopkins survey and its flaws, links to the Casualty count site, and additional estimates

bottom line of the MSN story is that roughly 30,000 (at most) civilians have died.

plus 1,000 plus American troops

who knows how many insurgents? Can't find that statistic

Obviously no one wants to address this. They just want to yammer on about B-%$#('-S.
:rolleyes:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=370372

with a link to a comphrensive news story on the John Hopkins survey and its flaws, links to the Casualty count site, and additional estimates

bottom line of the MSN story is that roughly 30,000 (at most) civilians have died.

plus 1,000 plus American troops

who knows how many insurgents? Can't find that statistic
Considering there's a 30:1 casualty rate between insurgents and Americans, I'd say 30,000.