100,000 Iraqi Deaths?
moultano
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Creator of ns_shiva. Join Date: 2002-12-14 Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
in Discussions
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
The scientists who wrote the report concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision," because the quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study. The interviewers were Iraqi, most of them doctors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stopped reading there.
(crazy over the top website but it hosts the video)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I went on a fairly easy day trip, organiszed by Muslim Red Cresent, to deliver supplies to the people of Safwan. This is a town inside Iraq, which could claim the faint privilege of being the first centre of population liberated from Saddam's control. It lies along the way to the port of Umm Qasr, the harbor by which "the Coalition" aimed to open the hermetic state to the magnificence of the sea and the munificence of humanitarian aid. Dolphins were sporting in the blue waters of Umm Qasr, gaily conscripted as mine detectors, but in Safwan there was a scene of aridity, stagnation and misery. As our relief convoy arrived, with upbeat stencils and slogans on the sides of the trucks, I swiftly realized that it had been fatuous to hope for a gretting of sweets and flowers.
At first, the baked fields around the town appeared inactive if not depopulated. Then a group of children materialized, waving and scampering. Soon, it seemed as if people were rising by magic from the dustry furrows and hillocks. Within moments, the convoy was halted by the sheer press of numbers, and a yelling throng was pressin so close that it prevented the rear doors of the trucks from being opened. After a nasty, undignified scuffle in which some limbs were broken, the Kuwaiti relief workers began to toss the precious cartons out on the heads of the mob, as if supervising frenzy time in some badly run zoo. I don't remember witnessing a more dispiriting scene. The Arab street, whether for or against, is no prettier than any other scene of crowd emotion.
Older people were shoved to the rear, as were the less aggressive children, so one had the chance to talk. On the whole, it was the children who were most enthusiastic about the new arrivals. One of them did an astonishing impression of a helicopter gunship firing down, and then gave an emphatic thumbs-up signal. (Generally, children provide the cheer-up moment in situations like this, so I disliked myself for noticing how many of these had pinched, acne-studded, wolfish faces.) Several of the grown-ups, though, manifested acute resentment and annoyance. "Why do you photograph us like animals?" said one man, shaking with displeasure. "Here - this is how it should be done." And he produced from under his robe an Iraqi Government ration book, which, with the help of my translator, I deciphered as a list of his meager entitlements, as a father of four, from the local Baath Party. Gesturing furiously to the winner-take-all grabfest a few hundred yards away, the old boy made if voluably plain that this was not his idea of a fair deal. But he also made it clear that he didn't much like the Kuwaitis. A reek okf envy was evident: Iraqi's have been told fro decades that their southern Arab neighbours are rich and fat; fit only to be despoiled of their inherited oil welth. For this man and others, it was shameful to be the recipient of charity from such a depraved source.
"Boosh, Boosh!" was still the piping chant of the infants and younger boys, even if some of them did distract the photographers and cameramen by this means, while cunningly letting other kids circle behind to grab wallets and water bottles. A Kuwaiti woman, who hadn't wanted to dismount from the bus, found her privacy and modesty invaded by a small lad who nevertheless proffered a sharp knife. A little earlier, a man named Ajami Saadoun Khilis, who had lost a son and a brother to Saddam, had wept unendingly in the presence of a journalistic colleague of mine, and said: "You just arrived. You're late. What took you so long?" But this, too, was a version of impotence and animosity and humiliation. I found several men - all the women hung back throughout, many of them winding their veils ever closer - who openly praised Saddam Hussein. "He is the only Muslim leader." "He is the only Arab who is a soldier." These were, admittedly, slavish quotations from repetitive regime propaganda, but they were being uttered several days after Saddam's army had dissolved or fled, and they obviously weren't being voiced in the hope of an extra handout.
Another man, wearing a red-and-white headdress, took my sleeve. "Yesterday I saw a British soldier shoot two small children just here on this raod." This was a British sector, and there were British military police in the town, so I asked him to tell me more about it. "He shot them with an M-16." I offered to take his complaint to a nearby British officer, even though I know that British forces don't carry M-16's, whereupon he became somewhat evasive and silken. "All right, then, " I said. "Forget the officer. Where are the bodies?" "We buried them right away." "And as for the funeral?" "There wasnt time." At this point my compainion and interpreter, a vast bear shaped Palestinian whom I shall call Omar, touched my arm and said, "Come along, Mr. Christopher. There peoples are liars."
The Iraqi who had spoken was certainly a liar, and a poor one as well as a mean and low one, but something in me wanted to resist Omar's conclusion. Or perhaps to explain it away. The townspeople of Safwan didn't owe me an explanation. They certainly didnt owe me a welcome, or a friendly pelting with the rose petals they didnt have. They really did live in something like a desert. On previous visits to Iraq, I had been embarrassed by the hospitality of those who had much less than I did. On this trip, I felt awkward for the opposite reason. But on this occasion, after all, the soldiers, the relief workers and the reporters outnumbered the population. Should the locals have put on a feast for people who were casually throwing them food? Especially when what they most wanted, and most often mentioned, was water? In the end, even when it takes a vain form or a truculent or sullen shape, pride is an essential part of self-respect. AS I departed, a titanic convoy began to roll by. It took forever to pass me, with its massive squadrons of earthmovers, ditchdiggers, tanks and armoured cars, feeding one of the longest supply lines in the whole story of warfareand already stretching all the way to the suburbs of Baghdad. By agreement, the soldiers of the Coalition do not fly their national flagson the soil of Iraq. Good. But there was no mistaking their origin, and they roared by the dwarfish mud-brick dwellings without looking to left or right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anything solid in there, anything empirical? Not really - it could easily have been manufactured for minds like mine, Chompsky could have been right when he wrote: "The American press regularly disgraces itself with racist caricatures of Arab sheiks said to have decided to destroy Western civilization by increasing oil prices ... We can read learned discussions about "the Arab mentality", about "the culture of shame" that prevents Arabs from looking reality in the eye and about the treachorous and violent character of the Arabs".
I dont think this of all Arabs at all times, but I am convinced that when the chips are down and a camera is thrust in their face, truth feels pain.
<a href='http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/war021210.pdf' target='_blank'>Here's</a> an interesting UN document on the Iraqi humanitarian disaster.
That's just one senario. The point is, we don't actually know the details surrounding the issue. Without those, it might as well be a black picture with sound.
-edit-
Also, emotions are funny things. Sometimes a laugh relieves stress. Saying, "The copper pilot half-way laughed "oh dude" because he was awestruck and somewhat terrified of what he'd just done," is just as convincing as saying "The copper pilot half-way laughed "oh dude" because he thought it was cool watching 100 people get blown up!"
You're suggesting that
1. All Arabs have no pride or self-respect.
2. This lack of pride or self-respect makes them whine and lie.
3. Arabs are in their present 'shameful condition' because of they try to tell people they are being 'mistreated and abused'.
Pretty bigoted if you ask me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is that too big a blanket? Probably. It also probably applies to many Westerners as well. This was an idea I had about Arab culture for a while, and everything I've read about the Middle East seems to confirm it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hold up. Are we talking about the effects of oppression on any society or are we talking about Arab culture? What was an idea about Arab culture? That it reacts to invasion with whining and lying? Clarify your point of view and <b>please</b> include some evidence to support your conclusion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Chompsky could have been right when he wrote: "The American press regularly disgraces itself with racist caricatures of Arab sheiks said to have decided to destroy Western civilization by increasing oil prices ... We can read learned discussions about "the Arab mentality", about "the culture of shame" that prevents Arabs from looking reality in the eye and about the treachorous and violent character of the Arabs".
I dont think this of all Arabs at all times, but I am convinced that when the chips are down and a camera is thrust in their face, truth feels pain.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seriously believe that there exists a 'culture of shame' and that Arabs are 'treacherous and violent?' Your shallow generalizations fit hand in glove with Hollywood action movies about Muslim terrorists and the cracks late-night talk show hosts make about the kaffiyeh or 70 virgins. You're perpetuating the stereotypes that Chomsky argues has penetrated the American press.
Try to take a step out of your conception of a people that I don't think you have really had any contact with and reevaluate what you think about them.
You're suggesting that
1. All Arabs have no pride or self-respect.
2. This lack of pride or self-respect makes them whine and lie.
3. Arabs are in their present 'shameful condition' because of they try to tell people they are being 'mistreated and abused'.
Pretty bigoted if you ask me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Is that too big a blanket? Probably. It also probably applies to many Westerners as well. This was an idea I had about Arab culture for a while, and everything I've read about the Middle East seems to confirm it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hold up. Are we talking about the effects of oppression on any society or are we talking about Arab culture? What was an idea about Arab culture? That it reacts to invasion with whining and lying? Clarify your point of view and <b>please</b> include some evidence to support your conclusion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Chompsky could have been right when he wrote: "The American press regularly disgraces itself with racist caricatures of Arab sheiks said to have decided to destroy Western civilization by increasing oil prices ... We can read learned discussions about "the Arab mentality", about "the culture of shame" that prevents Arabs from looking reality in the eye and about the treachorous and violent character of the Arabs".
I dont think this of all Arabs at all times, but I am convinced that when the chips are down and a camera is thrust in their face, truth feels pain.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You seriously believe that there exists a 'culture of shame' and that Arabs are 'treacherous and violent?' Your shallow generalizations fit hand in glove with Hollywood action movies about Muslim terrorists and the cracks late-night talk show hosts make about the kaffiyeh or 70 virgins. You're perpetuating the stereotypes that Chomsky argues has penetrated the American press.
Try to take a step out of your conception of a people that I don't think you have really had any contact with and reevaluate what you think about them. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Clearly you misunderstood my quoting Chompsky. I didnt quote Chompsky in my support, I qouted him to make sure it was clear that I was also concerned that my sterotyping was being shaped by an often unfair media and that I didnt actually have any hands on experience. Kind of a caveat. I was trying to point out that that was my theory, nothing I have seen contradicts it, and it could be entirely based around a warped media.
I say things like "Americans seem pretty ignorant about the world around them" - and that doesnt make me a bigot. I dont automatically feel superior, thats just what my experience with Americans tell me. My media delivered experiences with Arabs delivers a very negative image of them. What am I suppose to say - "Most of what I've seen and heard relating to humiliated Arabs shows them to be very undignified about it, (dignity is hard in situations like that) but for the sake of avoiding the bigot call, I will assume that they're actually really awesome, intelligent and understanding, wonderful beings in that position." That's not true, thats not what I've seen.
The Chompsky quote came from <a href='http://www.abisf.com/lectures/lecture_MisperceptionsAndFearInTheOrient.html' target='_blank'>here</a>. I went searching for something to contradict myself halfway through typing the above, so as to attempt some sort of balance. I dont just whip this stuff up on my own and assume its true - I go looking for contradictory views.
Your 1. demonstrates very clearly that you didnt read what I typed. Check again. I said "I think that <b>WHEN</b> (note - not All Arab's haven't got it, but WHEN they have lost it) Arab's have no pride and self respect .... Getting invaded tends to destroy pride and self respect." Number 2 I agree with. Number 3 is ... well.... I have no idea where you got that from. They are IN a shameful condition because of war and politics, but to salvage personal/national pride (the 2 are linked) its easier to pretend that they were hard done by by external forces rather than lament their own leaders stupidity.
The scientists who wrote the report concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision," because the quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study. The interviewers were Iraqi, most of them doctors.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Stopped reading there. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Might want to read this, its from New Zealand and its the only SCIENTIFIC report that has been done on the death toll so far.
<a href='http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3605297&thesection=news&thesubsection=world' target='_blank'>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm...ubsection=world</a>
I would say this is probably because...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The researchers are savagely critical of the US General Tommy Franks for his widely quoted remark that "we don't do body counts". They say that the Geneva Convention requires occupying forces to protect the civilian population, and add the fact that more than half of the deaths caused by them were women and children is "cause for concern".
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can you not do body counts, thats completely insane. 10,000 - 30,000 civilian deaths by itself is atrocious but 100,000 is down right dispicable, in fact I don't think there are any words EVIL enough to describe that many civilian deaths.
How about....exaggeration? Yes that word fits nicely.
When ever I hear about Iraqi civilian casualties on the news it's always other Iraqi's or foreign fighters who are responsible for the killings, not the US military.
Allot of falsifications, exaggerations, and out right lies have been pumped out of Iraq lately, and what a coincidence, the election is in a couple days.
I'm sorry but I'll wait for some real proof, not overblown speculation.
assumption !> assumption <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
How about....exaggeration? Yes that word fits nicely.
When ever I hear about Iraqi civilian casualties on the news it's always other Iraqi's or foreign fighters who are responsible for the killings, not the US military.
Allot of falsifications, exaggerations, and out right lies have been pumped out of Iraq lately, and what a coincidence, the election is in a couple days.
I'm sorry but I'll wait for some real proof, not overblown speculation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice way of avoiding what I said, this is much better than what your guessing. This was scientifically done, now that doesn't mean that its true but its a lot better than people just downright guessing.
As I said before, the military isn't even performing any sort of body count on the civilians they've killed, most likely because they don't want it to come out that they've killed that many civilians.
To be honest most of this discussion makes me feel sick. Does it matter what the exact number is? These are <i>people</i> you are talking about, remember?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for that video. It's like quoting someone out of context. There was probably a curfew in that city. Why would that many people be moving at once after curfew? Shopping, maybe?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Laf. Shopping. Yea that's it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
To be honest most of this discussion makes me feel sick. Does it matter what the exact number is? These are <i>people</i> you are talking about, remember?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for that video. It's like quoting someone out of context. There was probably a curfew in that city. Why would that many people be moving at once after curfew? Shopping, maybe?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Laf. Shopping. Yea that's it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the higher the number, the more People that have suffered and died. The numbers are all about people - they are representative of each person. Every unit represents a bullet, a bomb, pain, blood, screaming relatives and death. Unless you wish to write out 100,000 stories of immense suffering, then you'll have to make do with statistics.
Jim has obviously fallen for the old trick that anything scientific has to be accurate. All it means is that somewhere they have recorded their method - and that method could be shonky as hell, and seems to be extremely reliant upon the word of Iraqi doctors. These guys probably dont have a case history of every single patient they see - and also keep in mind that for every death, there are about 2-3 wounded.
Jim has obviously fallen for the old trick that anything scientific has to be accurate. All it means is that somewhere they have recorded their method - and that method could be shonky as hell, and seems to be extremely reliant upon the word of Iraqi doctors. These guys probably dont have a case history of every single patient they see - and also keep in mind that for every death, there are about 2-3 wounded. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Excellent point.
To be honest most of this discussion makes me feel sick. Does it matter what the exact number is? These are <i>people</i> you are talking about, remember?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does the number really matter? No, not unless you have some agenda to push.
If you’re against the war you want the number to be as high as possible. The article Jim posted isn't about an unbiased body count, it's an angry tirade about the war, just using the death toll as more ammunition.
The way I see it body counts are for two things and two things only, determining the winner of a battle, and notifying families. However the death toll stated here has yet to be proven, yet people latch onto it because they want it to be true.
Disgusting creatures we humans are. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
To be honest most of this discussion makes me feel sick. Does it matter what the exact number is? These are <i>people</i> you are talking about, remember?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As for that video. It's like quoting someone out of context. There was probably a curfew in that city. Why would that many people be moving at once after curfew? Shopping, maybe?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Laf. Shopping. Yea that's it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And the higher the number, the more People that have suffered and died. The numbers are all about people - they are representative of each person. Every unit represents a bullet, a bomb, pain, blood, screaming relatives and death. Unless you wish to write out 100,000 stories of immense suffering, then you'll have to make do with statistics.
Jim has obviously fallen for the old trick that anything scientific has to be accurate. All it means is that somewhere they have recorded their method - and that method could be shonky as hell, and seems to be extremely reliant upon the word of Iraqi doctors. These guys probably dont have a case history of every single patient they see - and also keep in mind that for every death, there are about 2-3 wounded. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Does anyone ever read my posts? Seriously, I said in my previous post that this isn't necessarily true. I was just saying this was the first scientific report on the matter and thats A WHOLE lot better than guessing random figures of numbers. Tell the army to start doing bodycounts of how many people they have killed and how many people they have taken lives away from, and for what, trying to live a normal, healthy life.
Only if you tell all the people that Saddam would have used to fill his latest mass graves that you would rather see them dead because even though America had the power to stop him, we should have stood idly by.
Lets not tug on emotional cords, it makes for sloppy debates.
Yes sir I did and I agree any information is better than random guesses. Your right winds forumites here just have doubts as to the legitmancy of the numbers.
It is a know fact that the victory in ancient times would exagerate the # of enemies he killed. The winner got to write the history so that's how it happened.
Today it's inverted. People aren't as barbaric as they used to be (but that's argueable) however the trend is for the attacker to mitiagate the casualties and the defender to claim they lost a tremndous.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell the army to start doing bodycounts of how many people they have killed and how many people they have taken lives away from, and for what, trying to live a normal, healthy life.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gosh! I wish there was a better way. There is no "TAB" key in real life to show you the # of frags. I hate war. Violence is always the <i>last</i> solution when you have <i>failed</i> to resolve the issue peacefully. Any good karateman could tell you that. But nooo lets demonize and catagorize the "enemy" with out trying to understand and find other ways to resolve the issue. Just my 2 cents I guess...
Only if you tell all the people that Saddam would have used to fill his latest mass graves that you would rather see them dead because even though America had the power to stop him, we should have stood idly by.
Lets not tug on emotional cords, it makes for sloppy debates. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry, you're right, these people weren't really people, they didn't have lives. Personally, if there was only one death in this war it was one life that extinguished for no cause.
Also, you do realize that we are talking about Saddam Hussein and not HITLER. There's big difference, plus if you don't remember the US placed Saddam into power in the first place.
nselection/discuss to login.
Only if you tell all the people that Saddam would have used to fill his latest mass graves that you would rather see them dead because even though America had the power to stop him, we should have stood idly by.
Lets not tug on emotional cords, it makes for sloppy debates. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ironic that you bring up mass graves, because they're <i>also</i> usually inflated-- to rally support for the war . . .
<a href='http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html' target='_blank'>For example.</a>
So you too are <i>obviously</i> fully aware of the propaganda value of civilians' deaths.
Not that mass graves don't exist, mind you-- just like coalition-caused civilian casualities, they're out there-- they (also) just get inflated for political purposes.
Also, you do realize that we are talking about Saddam Hussein and not HITLER. There's big difference, plus if you don't remember the US placed Saddam into power in the first place. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What are you talking about?
I haven’t mentioned Hitler at all, but thanks for letting me know there's a difference between him and Saddam. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yea we did put him in power, so how can you blame us for taking care of our mess?
Let's think of them as people instead of numbers.
<a href='http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1263830,00.html' target='_blank'>For example.</a>
So you too are <i>obviously</i> fully aware of the propaganda value of civilians' deaths.
Not that mass graves don't exist, mind you-- just like coalition-caused civilian casualities, they're out there-- they (also) just get inflated for political purposes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't like body counts being raised by ether side, it's just that for some strange reason the inflated numbers of deaths in Iraq after the invasion are all you hear, while correct or incorrect numbers of people Saddam killed are rarely mentioned.
However I'm not a fan of the body count, putting numbers to human deaths and saying "this many is worse then this many" is stupid IMO.
From your article:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A Downing Street spokesman said: 'While experts may disagree on the exact figures, human rights groups, governments and politicians across the world have no doubt that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and their remains are buried in sites throughout Iraq.'<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you’re against the war you want the number to be as high as possible. The article Jim posted isn't about an unbiased body count, it's an angry tirade about the war, just using the death toll as more ammunition.
The way I see it body counts are for two things and two things only, determining the winner of a battle, and notifying families. However the death toll stated here has yet to be proven, yet people latch onto it because they want it to be true.
...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<i>WHAT?!</i>
I can tell you right now: being anti-war and anti-soldier are two completely different things. I'm completely against every aspect of this perverted, ugly war. Yet, I hope for the least deaths possible on both sides.
us "stoned slackers" (as O'Reilly decided to put it ever-so-eloquently) are not heartless. As a matter of fact, I can guarantee you without a doubt that those of us who remain staunchly anti-war are far more compassionate than those who remain behind it.
As Al Jazeera even reported (<a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4E1656B7-910A-4C25-9647-2A850523A762.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>, for those open-minded enough to read it), these numbers are quite correct, and furthermore were supplied by 'US Public Health Experts.' (presumably as a "WE KILLED A LOT OF THEM SO WE WIN" sort of measure)
Realize that this so-called "Shock and Awe" campaign killed tens of thousands in itself. Laying a city to waste from the sanctuary of the gulf isn't humanitarian. War is never humanitarian.
<!--QuoteBegin-Reasa+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Reasa)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->From your article:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A Downing Street spokesman said: 'While experts may disagree on the exact figures, human rights groups, governments and politicians across the world have no doubt that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of his own people and their remains are buried in sites throughout Iraq.'<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
why are we even comparing Bush to Saddam? I figured it was an accepted fact that Saddam was a brutal, bloody man. But then again, I couldn't exactly classify Bush as anything else (but that, alas, is not the point). We are not opeaating under the premise that Bush is worse than Saddam - we're operating under the premise that Bush is, without a doubt, the <i>second</i> most tyrannical political force to ever occupy Iraq at the expense of the people.
Bush may not have built his throne out of as many civilian skulls as Saddam had, but he's getting there quite rapidly.
One cannot justify <i>any</i> war by saying that "the guy we just had deposed was MUCH worse than we were. jesus, cut us some slack!" That's a cop-out and you know it.
Glad to see you’re not against the soldiers, I don't think anyone here is, but I don't see how that's relevant to my quote, which seems to be a reoccurring theme in your post.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->us "stoned slackers" (as O'Reilly decided to put it ever-so-eloquently) are not heartless. As a matter of fact, I can guarantee you without a doubt that those of us who remain staunchly anti-war are far more compassionate than those who remain behind it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
O'Reilly is a talking head, take what he says with a grain of salt. As for whose more compassionate there is no way you can guarantee something like that just like you can't guarantee that those numbers are accurate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As Al Jazeera even reported (<a href='http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4E1656B7-910A-4C25-9647-2A850523A762.htm' target='_blank'>here</a>, for those open-minded enough to read it), these numbers are quite correct, and furthermore were supplied by 'US Public Health Experts.' (presumably as a "WE KILLED A LOT OF THEM SO WE WIN" sort of measure)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>"Making conservative assumptions, we think </b>that about 100,000 excess deaths or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," researchers from Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, said in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal on Thursday.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is it every article about this from any source always starts out "well we can't prove jack ****, but here’s what we <i>think</i>."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->One cannot justify <i>any</i> war by saying that "the guy we just had deposed was MUCH worse than we were. jesus, cut us some slack!" That's a cop-out and you know it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First I'm not comparing Bush to anyone, Saddam was Saddam and that’s that.
Second by the above logic if we said Hitler was much worse then we are after we basically took over Europe after WWII, it would be a cop out? Things didn't go perfectly with that whole Cold War thing, but I don't think anyone would call it a cop out, or is Iraq the only case for this logic?
When ever I hear about Iraqi civilian casualties on the news it's always other Iraqi's or foreign fighters who are responsible for the killings, not the US military.
Allot of falsifications, exaggerations, and out right lies have been pumped out of Iraq lately, and what a coincidence, the election is in a couple days.
I'm sorry but I'll wait for some real proof, not overblown speculation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Such real proof like about Iraqs WMDs? Sure, I here you go... lemme just type some......
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Only if you tell all the people that Saddam would have used to fill his latest mass graves that you would rather see them dead because even though America had the power to stop him, we should have stood idly by.
Lets not tug on emotional cords, it makes for sloppy debates.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey, nobody asked the US to support him in the first place......
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yea we did put him in power, so how can you blame us for taking care of our mess?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Because that is a bloody sorry excuse for your war after the "World-in-danger-of-saddams-missles-bubble" was blows. You had the opportunity to
"take care" of your mess back in Desert Storm. Yet, you left him in power, and he sloughtered the rebellius poeple you had ignited to revolt. You really wonder why these people don't trust you? Why they want you out of their country? Are you really that blind? Your Governmet left them without support to get tortured and massacred after they helped your troops and hoped for you to free them. Would you believe in the US governments promises?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Why is it every article about this from any source always starts out "well we can't prove jack ****, but here’s what we think."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, it looked like every republican believed those artcles about weapon findings in Iraq a year ago....why should you not believe such "accurate" descriptions about civilian casualties today?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
your point that those folks who are anti-war seem to enjoy massive bodycounts is what I was aiming at. I respect the soldiers on both sides. Seeing even 1000 civilians killed is something that is devastating to one's sense of moral right. Mine, at least.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-the article+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (the article)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq," researchers from Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, said in a report published online by The Lancet medical journal on Thursday.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why is it every article about this from any source always starts out "well we can't prove jack ****, but here’s what we think."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
nothing is certain in war. Even if every US soldier was required to fill out paperwork for every 'suspicious' civilian or soldier that they kill (they aren't), the number could never be accurate.
After 18 months of raping and devastating their entire country, how can 100,000 civilian deaths surprise you? (that does suggest something like an average of 172 killed per day, but that can be explained in the devastation of Baghdad alone.)
I doubt either of us could even comprehend how many innocents were killed the first night that we decided to sling high explosives at a civil capital.
For every scared soldier that shoots a woman out of a vietnam-esque fear for his life? <b>One dead.</b>
For every fat technician who fires a patriot missile at a supposed terrorist stronghold? <b>One dead</b> (a conservative guess)
For every tank that busts through a barricaded house? <b>One dead</b>
It adds up.
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First I'm not comparing Bush to anyone, Saddam was Saddam and that’s that.
Second by the above logic if we said Hitler was much worse then we are after we basically took over Europe after WWII, it would be a cop out? Things didn't go perfectly with that whole Cold War thing, but I don't think anyone would call it a cop out, or is Iraq the only case for this logic?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well let us take a look at Bush from a pathological viewpoint. Recently under harsh criticism for his inability to act on his cowboy threats, this president decided to quell it by attacking a country.
He began by placing aircraft and missile carriers in allied waters, safe from any attack. Hen then proceded to give the order for those missiles to be fired at the capital of that country (seemingly thinking that putting himself between them and their everyday lives would cause them to surrender.)
For the next year six months these forces raced around the country, searching for the leader (again believing that getting rid of this leader would solve anything; as if he was the real problem). Great News! They found him!
What changed? Nothing.
So, this man continued to send his army to the country, gave a no-bid oil drilling contract the a company still giving dividends to one of his best buddies and closest political allies, and stalled the war so these oil engineers could cut the vein of the land and suck it dry like perverted vampires.
Today? This man has no way out of the war (remniscent of the "what the hell are we fighting for?" syndrome of another, equally debatable war that had happened three decades earlier) and continues to tell his own people that things are getting better.
There is a key difference between this war and WW2, the difference being the fact that it was a moralistic war. The entire free world wanted to see Hitler burn, and ACTUAL coalition was forged (rather than a bloated list designed to showcase the "massive" support behind your vendetta).
This "Shock and Awe" campaign is, to be perfectly honest, quite similar to the Blitzkrieg tactics of Hitler. I guess a certain President has been reading <i>Mein Kampf</i> You make the call.
This topic's rather warm... Think we better cool it down.
***Locked***