State of Iraq

[August]

Originally Posted by Freiwillige

Nope it wasn't worth it, IRAQ would have been better off with Saddam.

Easy to say when it's not your family being subjected to chemical weapons attacks or being tortured because you lost a soccer game.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

Easy to say when it's not your family being subjected to chemical weapons attacks or being tortured because you lost a soccer game.

and how many are dead there now or displaced? I can't say we really helped either.

Easy to say when it's not your family being subjected to chemical weapons attacks

What chemical weapons attacks?
The ones many years before when he was our friend.

Though to further illustrate the level of bull and sheer hypocricy some still spout in support of the lies lets take a few of their usual lines and apply them to Iraq....
Saddam killed some civilians, these civilians were supporting Iranian backed terrorists and the terrorists were hiding amongst the civilians.
That makes it the terrorists fault and the civilians fault and the Iranians fault, they are the ones who were wrong not Saddam.
While using chemical weapons in civilian areas isn't very nice it is one of the lesser evils we must support to counter the greater evil and if those civilians didn't wan't to be gassed they should have moved somewhere else or made the terrorists move.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

and how many are dead there now or displaced? I can't say we really helped either.

We had to destroy the village in order to save it, I believe was a rational during Viet Nam.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

and how many are dead there now or displaced? I can't say we really helped either.

It'll take 50 years to know for sure either way.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

and how many are dead there now or displaced? I can't say we really helped either.

We don't see the innocents as human, they're numbers. Hard to grasp the US military killed close to 300,000 civilians. Imagine you as a parent having your home blown up and all you can find of your kids is body parts. We are supposed to protect civilians, when we level towns because of a few gunman then blame them for all the civilian deaths....that's just murder.

[August]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Hard to grasp the US military killed close to 300,000 civilians

Care to cite where you got that statistic?

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by August

Care to cite where you got that statistic?

Just do online searches. The problem is the number goes anywhere. Most US data bases have the deaths due to military around 100,000. These include dead with a a name. The numbers don't include unknowns. Radical sites want to put the number over 800,000. When you carpet bomb an area and kill many that are buried by the public, it's about impossible to get a correct count. The many various data bases all vary, but most agree around 300,000 from military alone, most killed by air strikes.

No doubt many were caught in a warzone, used by insurgents as shields, but we constantly blamed them. Understand I don't blame soldiers, if I was being shot at from a house, I'd shoot back at it.

Take the battle of Fallujah. No doubt the town was full of fighters and insurgents. We totally surrounded the town. We used various methods telling all the civilians to leave. US sources say 70% of the 300,000 civilians left, other sources said about 40% were able to leave. The US number for civilians killed is around 6000, higher numbers say 20,000...insurgents killed, 1500. We leveled that town. We really had little choice as insurgents set up bomb traps all over. They were given credit for killing another 3000 civilians.

We created the Geneva Conventions after Germany to help protect civilians. This is one of the reasons Bush Sr. refused to invade Iraq, he clearly states in several writings the death to civilians would be in the millions to remove Sadaam, plus he saw no reason to destroy the country since Saddam was contained. He had more reason to deal with Saddam.

[August]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Just do online searches.

Do your own research. You claimed there have been 300,000 civilian deaths caused by the US military so either put up a credible source or admit you are exaggerating.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by August

Do your own research. You claimed there have been 300,000 civilian deaths caused by the US military so either put up a credible source or admit you are exaggerating.

Don't be ignorant. Here is how simple it is. In search type "Iraqi civilian deaths" Up will pop 1000 links. You can compare actual US military counts vs. UN counts vs. over 40 different governments or non government agents. data base counts. Results for actual named marked graves being 100,000, unmarked graves could be near a million. Most unbiased surveys state between 200-400,000 killed, I split the difference.

Right now they have marked over 200,000 unknown graves, some mass graves. Most were in battle areas. Slowly they're digging them up to determine cause. They say it's fairly easy to determine who and what killed them, just very expensive, so they just pull a few. Many think years from now we'll be accused of mass murder. The US military has fought against digging up unknown graves...They want to protect the rights of the dead not to be disturbed.

In the end, we have somewhere between 1-2 million dead, we'll never know, but was it worth it for nothing.

I have no problem taking war to a civilian population that supports a government and the war machine. Iraq can't be compared to Germany.
Not to mention none of our interest that meet a war agenda were met.
If so, then we need to be at war with over 20 other nations.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Armistead

We don't see the innocents as human, they're numbers. Hard to grasp the US military killed close to 300,000 civilians. Imagine you as a parent having your home blown up and all you can find of your kids is body parts. We are supposed to protect civilians, when we level towns because of a few gunman then blame them for all the civilian deaths....that's just murder.

While I highly doubt the 300,000 number you list since that would mean we are killing innocent civilians at a rate of about half of what was done during the bombing of densely populated cities with massive amounts of dumb bombs in Germany during WW2.... Think on that for a minute and you will see how inane such a claim is....

Still, let me play devils advocate for a moment. Using your logic, the death of "300,000" people is "murder". While I admit its a tragedy, let us look at history. In WW2, German civilian deaths were between 600,000 and 700,000 dead, about double that wounded, and 7.5 Million made homeless. So using your arguement, the leaders of the Allies were all murderers. They should have never acted to preserve the peace, remove a psychopathic tyrant and save the known world from being killed if not of "good German stock". Perhaps you'd like to be speaking German now?

It is documented that Saddam is known to have killed at least 600,000 people. http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_d...sein42503.html
With this fact alone, even assuming your loss numbers are correct, we have eased the plight of the Iraqi people substantially. Yet what you so lightly dismiss - the "levelling" of towns because of a "few" gunman (and I'd like a bit more than mere accusation on that topic), is in fact sound policy. The townspeople KNOW who the insurgents are. They choose to not point them out and have them removed. Instead, they ALLOW them to hide within the general populace. Thus, they are complicit in their actions.

Let me tell you, the vast majority of soldiers in Iraq (and anywhere else) would like nothing better than to get flagged down on a patrol, told who, what and where the bad things are, and be able to handle those problems (be they people, IED's, weapon cache's, etc) discretely with a minimum of fuss (and danger). However, that doesn't happen in some places. So then you get into a bad spot, and it becomes a "you or them" equation. All the namby pampy hand wringing of "we shouldn't be there" doesn't do those grunts any more good than TP for armor at that point. Had the "innocent" civilian population stood up and not hidden the bad guys, it wouldn't get to that point. But they did. They are no longer innocent.

I'm sure this will be met with great disgust by some here, but I am going to say it anyway. Remember the story of Sodom and Gommorah? Had just a tiny segment of people be righteous, the cities would have been spared. The same applies here - had one or 2 souls in a village been brave enough to stand up for their own country and their own people, they could have saved that village.

The war has been mismanaged. Thus it has turned into a tragedy. It will not be a success until the Iraqi people truly are willing to stand up for themselves, and secure their own freedom with their own blood. Yes, sometimes they don't talk out of fear. Thankfully, there ARE a fair number that step forward and help cleanse their villages of insurgents. Those are the true Iraqi patriots - and they have saved countless lives. Lives of their fellow Iraqi's, and lives of US and allied soldiers. May Iraq find more of them among its people, and then they could truly have their freedom, and we could come home.

To those brave Iraqi's, just as I do with our own servicemen and women.... I salute you.

[Freiwillige]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Still, let me play devils advocate for a moment. Using your logic, the death of "300,000" people is "murder". While I admit its a tragedy, let us look at history. In WW2, German civilian deaths were between 600,000 and 700,000 dead, about double that wounded, and 7.5 Million made homeless. So using your arguement, the leaders of the Allies were all murderers. They should have never acted to preserve the peace, remove a psychopathic tyrant and save the known world from being killed if not of "good German stock". Perhaps you'd like to be speaking German now?

This is just postwar theory. I highly doubt that Hitler had any real interest in Germanisizing the world in a literal sense. And yes all sides of that horrible conflict were murderers. Murder is the price you pay for committing warfare on your enemy if civilian lives are lost or if you kill captured soldiers. Guess what, we all did it. Civilians were brutalized and yup we all did it. This is war and its never pretty!

But there comes a point to where you have to say Hmmm is it really worth it? In this case my opinion, and I realize it is just that an opinion is that No it was not worth it, Not then and not now.

My views on war are simplistic, Avoid war at all costs and if you fail on that then take Pattons advice and destroy them, Use there guts to lube the wheels on your tanks.

We didn't follow the first part of that equation, In fact that is the first time In this century that the US didn't react to war but was pro active in starting it, Maybe that's why its so sour.

It is documented that Saddam is known to have killed at least 600,000 people.

When he was our friend

They choose to not point them out and have them removed. Instead, they ALLOW them to hide within the general populace. Thus, they are complicit in their actions.

Perfect, Haplo excuses crazy saddams murders, damn I though he was trying to justify removing Sadam for being a crazy murdering bastard

So lets get this straight

the "levelling" of towns because of a "few" gunman (and I'd like a bit more than mere accusation on that topic), is in fact sound policy.

Mr so called christian is on the same page as a genocidal maniac.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Let me tell you, the vast majority of soldiers in Iraq (and anywhere else) would like nothing better than to get flagged down on a patrol, told who, what and where the bad things are, and be able to handle those problems (be they people, IED's, weapon cache's, etc) discretely with a minimum of fuss (and danger). However, that doesn't happen in some places. So then you get into a bad spot, and it becomes a "you or them" equation. All the namby pampy hand wringing of "we shouldn't be there" doesn't do those grunts any more good than TP for armor at that point. Had the "innocent" civilian population stood up and not hidden the bad guys, it wouldn't get to that point. But they did. They are no longer innocent.

I'm sure this will be met with great disgust by some here, but I am going to say it anyway. Remember the story of Sodom and Gommorah? Had just a tiny segment of people be righteous, the cities would have been spared. The same applies here - had one or 2 souls in a village been brave enough to stand up for their own country and their own people, they could have saved that village.


To those brave Iraqi's, just as I do with our own servicemen and women.... I salute you.

The reason they're called innoncent, is because they're unarmed. I guess you expect the unrighteous women and children to take sticks and fight insurgents.

Actually about 70% of civilians killed were by airstrikes. You know, sitting at the table in your home with your family eating and boom..everything you love is splattered around you.

You know there was a reason journalist were embedded and controlled by the military to start with...

Only radicals invoke the name of God in killing, your logic is no better than the muslim radicals there.

[Skybird]

FWIW:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

From their Rationale:
"The continuing high level of violent death in Iraq since 2003 is a result of the US/UK-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. None of the deaths we record would have happened were it not for the invasion. The USA and the UK are electoral democracies. Voters and tax-payers of these countries share in the responsibility for their governments’ actions. Iraq Body Count team members are all citizens of the USA or UK who believe that it is our continuing responsibility to record every known Iraqi death resulting from the actions of our leaders."

About them:
"Iraq Body Count (IBC) records the violent civilian deaths that have resulted from the 2003 military intervention in Iraq. Its public database includes deaths caused by US-led coalition forces and paramilitary or criminal attacks by others.
IBC’s documentary evidence is drawn from crosschecked media reports of violent events leading to the death of civilians, or of bodies being found, and is supplemented by the careful review and integration of hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures.
Systematically extracted details about deadly incidents and the individuals killed in them are stored with every entry in the database. The minimum details always extracted are the number killed, where, and when.



Confusion about the numbers produced by the project can be avoided by bearing in mind that:

• IBC’s figures are not ‘estimates’ but a record of actual, documented deaths.
• IBC records solely violent deaths.
• IBC records solely civilian (strictly, ‘non-combatant’) deaths.
• IBC’s figures are constantly updated and revised as new data comes in, and frequent consultation is advised. "

Keep note of their criterion for what they count - and what not. The total loss of life actually is higher than what they count.

However, "Sourcewtch" has a somewhat critical opinion about IBC, but it is difficult to judge whether or not their criticism is justified - anyone can come along and accuse the other whose opinion he odes not like, to be"just an amateur". I am an amateur for number-tracking stuff myself - but still I have knoweldge of the basics of statistics and studied it for several semesters.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...raq_Body_Count

Next, there is this:

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq

Very different numbers.

I wonder if the lack of correct number tracking for wounded soldiers and civilian deaths is intentionally done by the Pentagon - to hide the costs of war. Only KIAs seem to be correctly counted.


Two things I take for certain:

1. the US and UK have no interest in revealing the full perspective about wounded and killed people, in order to hide the real costs of the war,

2. therefore it is a safe bet that the actual numbers are much higher than the official statements by government and military speakers.

Or have politicians all of a sudden learned their responsibility to not to deceive their people but to always speak the truth?