State of Iraq

[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 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.

[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.

[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

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.

I rarely take things personally - and I know this wasn't meant to be personal, but I have a dog in this one. You either want to ignore the realities of history - or you simply don't know your history. You think the Hitler came to power through an election of the people? If so, think again. He was made chancellor after the Nazi's LOST seats in government - so that he would support Hindenburg. The majority of Germans did NOT want the Nazi's in power. The situation is little different in Iraq now. You have thugs with guns who want to force a government on a people that they don't want. Yes, you resist the insurgents, you very likely will get shot and killed. Same as in prewar Germany. Iraq has its patriots. Germany had theirs. Germany didn't have enough of them - and neither does Iraq right now.

Your entitled to your opinion, but your displaying a woeful ignorance that insults every patriot of any country.

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.

"Not to mention" - aka you can't prove your one point so lets move to another one...
Whatever....

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I rarely take things personally - and I know this wasn't meant to be personal, but I have a dog in this one. You either want to ignore the realities of history - or you simply don't know your history. You think the Hitler came to power through an election of the people? If so, think again. He was made chancellor after the Nazi's LOST seats in government - so that he would support Hindenburg. The majority of Germans did NOT want the Nazi's in power. The situation is little different in Iraq now. You have thugs with guns who want to force a government on a people that they don't want. Yes, you resist the insurgents, you very likely will get shot and killed. Same as in prewar Germany. Iraq has its patriots. Germany had theirs. Germany didn't have enough of them - and neither does Iraq right now.

Your entitled to your opinion, but your displaying a woeful ignorance that insults every patriot of any country.


"Not to mention" - aka you can't prove your one point so lets move to another one...
Whatever....

You're forgetting your history. Hitler didn't come to power by the people, but once in the majority fell for his fervor to restore Germany back to power, most in hope of economic gain. When such a war machine seeks to destroy the world, invade your home, you have the fight to fight back.

We, in the same way invaded Iraq, pumped up in a fervor over lies. Millions jumped on the cause without asking the right questions. It's rather easy to see how people fall for men like Hitler and Bush.

Germany invaded nation after nation, seems you forgot that part of history with mad goals to take over the world. Rather silly of you to compare the state of a broken beaten Iraq totally surrounded under sanctions to a war machine like Germany seeking to control the world with brute force. If you can't get that, can't help you.

The political climate in Germany has no comparison to Iraq. The Nazi's were a brief political movement in history, compared to a culture in Iraq for generations. Why parts of that culture is violent and cruel, the only reason we make it our business is oil. We've sought control of the region through dictators or colonialism. We really have no business there in war. If it wasn't for oil and profit, we wouldn't care a bit would we? Almost funny, you hear all these GOP politicians say we need to use the energy we have, so we don't have to fight these wars or be involved over there...I agree, but let's be honest why we've sought to control the region and politics there.

Our soldiers are brave heroic men that I support, but fighting to support lies and control others land that can do you no harm doesn't make the war just. You may be willing to die or have your children die for men like Bush, I certainly wouldn't want my son to die for him.

I rarely take things personally - and I know this wasn't meant to be personal, but I have a dog in this one.

Its a very sick dog you have which needs to be put down, rather like that sick puppy saddam was put down.

[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?

[August]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Don't be ignorant. Here is how simple it is. In search type "Iraqi civilian deaths"

Don't be ignorant yourself. "Iraqi civilian deaths" are not the same thing as "Iraqi civilians killed by the US Military", unless of course you think that it's our soldiers out there planting roadside bombs and blowing up crowded markets.

[Skybird]

You both are right in a way, August and Armistead. Because all this violence exists for no other reason than the invasion of 2003, without that war the violence since then would not exist. That way the US and UK have to accept a certain ammount of responsibility even for those deaths where the own troops have not actively pushed buttons and pulled triggers. Thus it is legitimiate to discuss both the directly and the indirectly caused death numbers.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Because all this violence exists for no other reason than the invasion of 2003, without that war the violence since then would not exist. That way the US and UK have to accept a certain ammount of responsibility

No way. Saddam killed far more civilians than what died in OIF and he continued to kill them in large numbers right up until the moment we removed him from power. You can't assume this long standing pattern of violence was going to stop had we not invaded.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

No way. Saddam killed far more civilians than what died in OIF and he continued to kill them in large numbers right up until the moment we removed him from power. You can't assume this long standing pattern of violence was going to stop had we not invaded.

I do not hold the US and UK responsible for the deaths caused by Saddam - with the exception of where the US/UK assisted Saddam, gave him the opponent, and delivered him with the means to commit these killings. I think of the Iran war, the Western assistance in arming Saddam chemically, or the treachery after Kuwait 1991 when the US motivated the Shia revolt - and then let them down when High Noon had come and watched without motion when Saddam massacred them.

But regarding the violence since 2003, I hold the US and UK responsible for all those deaths that happened because and since that war, and that would not have taken place without the invasion of 2003. The US/UK created the opportunity for Al Quaeda entering the stage in Iraq as well, and it created the opportunity for the outbreak of violence between the ethnic factions, and the entering of the Iranians and Shia fundamentalists into the Iraqi playfield.

These responsibilities you have to accept - causally and morally, whether you like that or not. You cannot just march into a country, mess it up more than it already was, start a shooting war and see criminals and terrorists entering the place in your wake adding to the general harm, and then claim that you have nothing to do with the mess you created. This is your bank coup, and that others commit other bank coups or would have started a coup on the bank you now have targeted yourself, if you wouldn'T have done it first, does not change that you are responsible for you own coup. What Saddam would have done since 2003 if you would have left him where he was, is speculation, and does not interfere with the deaths caused not by him, but by you.