TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Iraqi Civillian Deaths
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Iraqi Civillian Deaths

well, i just noticed the number almost DOUBLED in my sig recently.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

take note americans, that's 944 MORE people dead in iraq, a country the size of california, than died in the heinous WTC attacks.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/loc...27p-40361c.html

and that's using the minimum count, not the maximum. also this does not include military deaths, and circumstantial ones such as deaths from destroyed infrastructure.

mark my words america, you will reap what you sow.

Re: Iraqi Civillian Deaths

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith mark my words america, you will reap what you sow.

I point the figure directly at those who support his actions. that means YOU. (indirectly, I admit, it also means me, as i do buy american products, it's hard not to. but at least i do what i can)

you said in another thread that you are leaning towards antiwar now, because of the way that the US was handling the aftermath. well, that's all well and good, but there are 2 things wrong with that.

first, thousands of people had to die before you realized you were wrong. second, everyone knew the aftermath was not going to be handled well, and yet you supported him anyway. this is either callous or ignorant, take your choice.

sorry occrider, i do not want to turn this into a flame war, i respect you, you have good and well backed up posts, and i have no problem with you personally. It's just people like you who backed this war just make me so angry, about both the innocent deaths abroad, and the retalliation and escalation of the situation on US soil, (and possibly UK, australian, and Canadian soil) that will occur as a direct result of this foreign policy.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith I point the figure directly at those who support his actions. that means YOU. (indirectly, I admit, it also means me, as i do buy american products, it's hard not to. but at least i do what i can) you said in another thread that you are leaning towards antiwar now, because of the way that the US was handling the aftermath. well, that's all well and good, but there are 2 things wrong with that. first, thousands of people had to die before you realized you were wrong. second, everyone knew the aftermath was not going to be handled well, and yet you supported him anyway. this is either callous or ignorant, take your choice. sorry occrider, i do not want to turn this into a flame war, i respect you, you have good and well backed up posts, and i have no problem with you personally. It's just people like you who backed this war just make me so angry, about both the innocent deaths abroad, and the retalliation and escalation of the situation on US soil, (and possibly UK, australian, and Canadian soil) that will occur as a direct result of this foreign policy.

Well first of all, I was never pro-war with regards to the terms the war was carried out. I was always pro-disarmament and if you look back to my past posts, I always stated that it should have been carried out as a last resort. I never felt that the US had exhausted all its options and I always stated that more time should have been given and more inspectors should have been inserted. After the war had started, I adopted the approach that if the Iraqis were the true benefactors after it was all over then I would have been supportive of their liberation, ************ of the initial root causes for the start of the conflict. However, post conflict, the conduct of US military commanders and the priorities set by the Bush administration have been unacceptable. Museums should have been guarded, rioting should have been quelled, and top priority should have been given to restoring power and water. Furthermore the establishment of the US as controllers of Iraqi oil sales to rebuild the country should have been given to either the UN or an independant Iraqi committee.

I think you are jumping to conlcusions that the aftermath was predestined to have been handled incorrectly. It seemed as things were quite successful in the immediate aftermath until it later became clear that there were not enough resources devoted towards infrastructure rebuilding. So you can label me as being callous or ignorant, but I sincerely thought that the post-Iraq situation would have been handled a lot more smoothly. At any rate, I care not so much about your criticisms or anybody else's criticisms of my semi-support for what happened, the only criticism I'll actually take to heart are those of the people of Iraq. I guess we shall see what they ultimately think at the end of all of this.

well, fair enough i suppose.

See ... no flame Wow it's been a while since there has been a serious flame war in this forum.

- Well, I think this should be directed to those who blindly did as Bush said, and Bush's administrations actions. There's many who were against it. Now, Im wondering where the heck are those that talked so much about supporting the war, and those who wanted the war. All of the sudden, they are QUITE!!!! This is a debate thread, and im actually suspicious to see what their opinions are. But hey, I think they see that there's nothing they could really say. ( I do this in purpose to see who responds )
- Much credit to you though occrider, I see that you are not really a follower, but more to what reality is.

well.. i suspect they are quiet because they hae nothing to say. the simple fact is that this war WAS for oil, and geopolitical dominance. thousands of people lie dead for the bush administrations greed. not to mention the brutal slaying of the UN, and the further degradation of the international repuation of what should be the greatest nation in the world.

and the people of america are not all to fault either, the largest protests ever held worldwide failed to have an effect, what else can we do?

well, the US has only proven that it only understands one thing, violence, and i guess that is what the next wave of antiwar protestors will have to resort to to stop future agression.

see? the cycle? in northern ireland, in palestine, even in the brother and sister fighting? someone has to stop it. when?

to quote RATM: "what better place than here, what better time than now?"

i haven't been around long enough in these forums to formulate an opinion on the posters...but IMO you can never accurately account for deaths in this gulf war.

why do you ask? in my opinion this war was uncoventional to say the least, most of iraqi army were not in uniformed and thus you can not adequately disseminate between actual civilian deaths vs iraqi army deaths. im not pro war, but i do not condone the press handling of the matter either. i have become very cynical about source data from many 'credible' sources because IMO information and data are so easily manipulated on both sides of the spectrum.

in the end people died and it's is a shame on both sides...

we really need to start showing war and other attrocities like suicides bombings or bombings in general (including 'precision strikes') on a individual level...who would want to kills after they see 3 000 dead (not refering to any persons or events) and their dependents suffer.

would you kill someone if you had to see their family suffer over and voer? multiply that by 3 000 times and maybe, just maybe we can realize that we are all damn human, we all bleed, we all dies, we all fear, but we all love in the end.

LASTLY, NEVER EVER SAY THE 'US'...it's not the US...it's the BUSH GOV'T, and the problem with that is that radicals use 'US' interchangably with a democratically elected (if bush was elected) gov't which changes every 4-8 years. use BUSH gov't...cuz we all know it's bush's war mongering.

It is better to die for a chance at freedom than to live a life rendered meaningless by tyranny.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It is better to die for a chance at freedom than to live a life rendered meaningless by tyranny.

Pithy sayings prove nothing. I doubt the families of the dead feel vindicated by the fact that their loved ones died to allow the state of Iraq to become what it has today. Besides, I wouldn't mind hearing your definition of freedom: is freedom being gunned down while exercising your "right" to free speech in front of a school? Living in squalor and drinking sewerage infested water because the water treatment plants were destroyed in the war and the occupying force "hasn't got around" to fixing it yet, perhaps? Or is it having only one radio station and one TV station, both of which serve as a mouthpiece for the propoganda war being waged by the occupying force?

Temporary problems, maybe, but then what about the permanent problems? Are the US going to allow democracy to flourish or they going to put in Chabali and have done with it? If they do allow democracy to flourish, who's to say the new leader is any better than Hussein? What if an extremist Shiite theocratic party gets elected in? Or, given that many of the Baath party members are still operating in high levels of the Iraqi government and administration at the moment, who's to say that another secular Stalinist leader won't get voted in, brutalising the Kurds and Shiites just as before?

No, there is too much doubt. They may have a "chance" at being free as you put it, but 4,000 deaths is a large bet to stake. I don't think human life, particularly in these quantities, is something we should be gambling with: the idealistic pursuits of freedom, democracy and whatever other ideologies you wish to name are subservient, in my opinion, to the over-riding necessity to preserve and above all respect human life for what it is. There can be no freedom, no democracy, without humanity.

I think we've had this discussion about the utility of human life before, so I'll stop there before we retread old ground.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Pithy sayings prove nothing. I doubt the families of the dead feel vindicated by the fact that their loved ones died to allow the state of Iraq to become what it has today. [QUOTE] If pithy sayings prove nothing, the self-pity of those far too emotional to objectively analyze the bigger picture fares little better. If those families would rather see their loved ones spared than see their people live in freedom, then they are no better than tyrants, as it is those very cowardly and selfish mentalities which give rise to tyranny. [QUOTE] Besides, I wouldn't mind hearing your definition of freedom:

Freedom is the extent to which external phenomena determine one's behavior is minimized.

quote:

is freedom being gunned down while exercising your "right" to free speech in front of a school? Living in squalor and drinking sewerage infested water because the water treatment plants were destroyed in the war and the occupying force "hasn't got around" to fixing it yet, perhaps? Or is it having only one radio station and one TV station, both of which serve as a mouthpiece for the propoganda war being waged by the occupying force?

I share your concerns about these things. With each passing day it becomes more apparent that the war was a failed effort. However, the circumstances in Iraq were severe enough to have required an attempt. If one truly respects human life, one cannot allow it to be squandered and polluated by tyranny.

quote:

Temporary problems, maybe, but then what about the permanent problems? Are the US going to allow democracy to flourish or they going to put in Chabali and have done with it? If they do allow democracy to flourish, who's to say the new leader is any better than Hussein? What if an extremist Shiite theocratic party gets elected in? Or, given that many of the Baath party members are still operating in high levels of the Iraqi government and administration at the moment, who's to say that another secular Stalinist leader won't get voted in, brutalising the Kurds and Shiites just as before?

At this juncture, I believe a puppet government is the only viable option. Until the Iraqi people adjust to living in a free society, they cannot be relied upon to choose an effective leader.

quote:

No, there is too much doubt. They may have a "chance" at being free as you put it, but 4,000 deaths is a large bet to stake. I don't think human life, particularly in these quantities, is something we should be gambling with: the idealistic pursuits of freedom, democracy and whatever other ideologies you wish to name are subservient, in my opinion, to the over-riding necessity to preserve and above all respect human life for what it is. There can be no freedom, no democracy, without humanity.

Life at any cost? A puppet of flesh and blood is no more alive than one carved out of wood. Life without freedom is a lie, a facade.

)but who is to say that we aren't puppets?

we are all puppets to some degree and nobody is truly free. we all have constraints and obligations to the 'global' economy and so long as the U.S. will use iraq as an export nation how will they benefit from such an arrangement?

money is your master...live it and learn it, because without money 95% of all the world's problems would be solved (thus introducing another 34095094850 problems )

The results of this war have sickened me further. I cannot stand Bush anymore and his disgusting excuse of an administration.

All these pro-war people keep repeating the notion that freedom will come to these people and it is better than Husseins regime in power. Yet the results of this war have put a worse people into an even more worse state. Yes... Hussein is gone... and that is good... but for 4000 lives..... and probably more in the near future? I dont think that was worth it.

Again.... i thinkthe US.... as John Smith put it are going to suffer the unfortunate consequences by alot of pissed off people in this world. Im sure that if i witnessed my family blown to bits or mowed down by US troops for speaking out loud that i would take some sort of action. I wouldnt give a fuck.

yeah the fault is that of dubYA...because it directly and solely on his hands!

it's unfortunate that people hate americans now solely because of one man. sure, i think dubYA is a terrorist in his own way...but if the US starts to get targetted (which they will...just look at the car bombing in saudi recently) then those responsible killing innocent americans are no just as bad as dubYA.

one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter...and in this world opinion is relative, everybody has their own opinion and to each individual that other man's opinion reeks of shit!

quote:

Originally posted by marcus82 i haven't been around long enough in these forums to formulate an opinion on the posters...but IMO you can never accurately account for deaths in this gulf war. why do you ask? in my opinion this war was uncoventional to say the least, most of iraqi army were not in uniformed and thus you can not adequately disseminate between actual civilian deaths vs iraqi army deaths. im not pro war, but i do not condone the press handling of the matter either. i have become very cynical about source data from many 'credible' sources because IMO information and data are so easily manipulated on both sides of the spectrum. in the end people died and it's is a shame on both sides...

I agree, but i believe that the deaths are probably UNDERSTATED, rather than overstated, due to the state of things in iraq right now, i doubt everyone is accounted for. the site i quoted uses minimum and maximum figures, verified from 3 major news sources. true, it's not perfectly accurate, but we can be reasonably sure that between 3 and 4 thousand iraqis lie dead.

quote:

Originally posted by marcus82 we really need to start showing war and other attrocities like suicides bombings or bombings in general (including 'precision strikes') on a individual level...who would want to kills after they see 3 000 dead (not refering to any persons or events) and their dependents suffer. would you kill someone if you had to see their family suffer over and voer? multiply that by 3 000 times and maybe, just maybe we can realize that we are all damn human, we all bleed, we all dies, we all fear, but we all love in the end.

amen. unfortunately, american media doesn't like to show these images, it brings down the pro war side in the polls, and thus Bush's popularity. conversely, we were bombarded over and over again with images of the WTC towers falling, so we would never forget it.

quote:

LASTLY, NEVER EVER SAY THE 'US'...it's not the US...it's the BUSH GOV'T, and the problem with that is that radicals use 'US' interchangably with a democratically elected (if bush was elected) gov't which changes every 4-8 years. use BUSH gov't...cuz we all know it's bush's war mongering.

well.. i admit that it is the bush govt or rather the PNAC which controls him. however, it is the american peoples complicity, that implicates them in this. and in the end, the terrorists will not retalliate against bush and cheney(i'm sure they would if they could), the victimes will be "innocent" people in LA, Chicago, Boston, Texas or London, Sydney, or Toronto.

We all need to stop this senseless violence, lest it spiral into something we can never quell.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider See ... no flame Wow it's been a while since there has been a serious flame war in this forum.

Melech Mike hasn't been posting.....lol

Just kidding Mike.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith well, the US has only proven that it only understands one thing, violence, and i guess that is what the next wave of antiwar protestors will have to resort to to stop future agression.

I hope you're not serious about that. That would make the anit-war protestors as hypocritical as the US gov; Violence for peace.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith amen. unfortunately, american media doesn't like to show these images, it brings down the pro war side in the polls, and thus Bush's popularity. conversely, we were bombarded over and over again with images of the WTC towers falling, so we would never forget it.

very true, but what r u doin watching CNN?

the responsibility is on use to disseminate fact from fiction...and realize bias that exist in media.

CNN is perhaps entertaining at best (like WWE entertaining).

im glad alot of american youth are realizing this now...perhaps they can help shape the world to be a better place then it is.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz I hope you're not serious about that. That would make the anit-war protestors as hypocritical as the US gov; Violence for peace.

didn't you read what i wrote after?

quote:

see? the cycle? in northern ireland, in palestine, even in the brother and sister fighting? someone has to stop it. when?

i was trying to illustrate the folly of this, and that we cannot continue the cycle of violence.

- Well Marcus, some americans youth, are switching from CNN to Foxnews, which is 100000000000000000000000000000000000000x worst...

OI!

that news is crap...i saw it one time on fox29 (in buffalo)...horrid.

i think naked news provides better 'coverage' than fox or cnn (LOL...sorry bad joke)!

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa This account is just the opposite of the American carelessness in Iraq. Perhaps the American troops got insufficient training and briefing before invading Iraq, so they couldn't hold fire long enough in confusing situations.

wow, good post (*edit* i put article...meant post)

that is very good point about inadequate combat training. remember whent he tank on the bridge by the palestine hotel fired at the camera crew on the balcony of one of the floors? as well as al-jaezera and abu dhabi? perhaps this are just few illustrations of 'mistaken' identity.

quote:

Originally posted by Vesa The saddest thing is that many of the Iraqi deaths were obviously unnecessary. Before the war there was lots of talk about minimizing civilian casualties, but it seems that those intentions were not always realized.

I disagree ... I think minimizing civilian casualties was a high priority. Considering that civilian casualties in the first gulf war were estimated to be as high as 35,000 civilians:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gu.../facts/gulfwar/

I think that given that this is an actual invasion of the country, that the civilian casualties were less than I expected them to be. Yes there are going to be a few isolated incidents of soldiers taking things too far (tank firing on Palestine hotel) but I think that minimizing civilian objectives was a very high priority in the war planning.

quote:

- The Shock & Awe bombing stategy was IMO an unnecessary military experiment, intended mainly to get data about the US bombing capability in a real situation. Another goal was to demoralize the Iraqi Special Republican Guards in charge of the defense of Baghdad, but there was little evidence of this particular strategy being the main factor which led to surrenders of Iraqi troops. Instead, a few missiles missed their targets, and killed dozens of civilians, proving the irresponsibility of using precision-guided missiles to destroy symbolic-only targets in the middle of residential areas.

I wouldn't call it an unnecessary military experiment. More like a failed strategy based upon analyses of the Iraqi army. If it had worked countless of lives could have been saved as was the intent of the strategy. I think it was worthy of an attempt since many people at the time did predict the Iraqi army to collapse.

quote:

- Cluster bombing. This was the most irresponsible action of all. The Iraqi troops were known to have little or no coherent war command, so the cluster bombing was not essential for the military end result. The only motive was to minimize American military casualties at the expense of hundreds of Iraqi civilian casualties. There's little military nobility in blowing up Iraqi women and children just to potentially save a few American soldiers. Especially when the goal of the operation was said to be freeing Iraqi civilians from tyranny.

The cluster bombs of the 80s are not the same cluster bombs today. The cluster munitions dropped were anti-ARMOR cluster munitions. More specifically CBU-97 Sensor Fuzed weapons:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/cbu-97.htm

These weapons release 10 submunitions around the target area which then rely upon INFRARED SEEKERS to guide individual bomblets to hit armored targets. They were dropped on armor columns and are the equivalent to attacking an armor column with 10 jets dropping regular bombs. Yes there is the potential for a few duds to not fire and injure civilians, however there is just as much of a chance for a regular bomb to be a dud.

quote:

- Many Iraqi conscripts were killed before they had a chance to surrender. Speed of advance was a military motivation which overrided careful planning to not engage Iraqi conscripts unnecessarily. The Iraqi military losses have been rumoured to be around 10,000, and may turn out to be the most shameful aspect of the American invasion.

Hmmmm so we should shoot a couple bullets at them and wait 15 minutes to see if they surrender, then shoot even more bullets at them and wait another 15 mintues to see if they surrender, etc.? Many many leaflets were dropped advising Iraqi combatants to surrender and how they should surrender. Those that didn't either A) Did not want to surrender ... or B) Could not surrender because they would be shot. In either case, what can you do? It's unfortunate in the latter case but there's no magic bullet that homes in on officers ..

Careful planning to NOT engage the Iraqi army??? Ay yay yay talk about monday morning quarterbacking. Look, the US army wasn't running around the desert looking to engage every single Iraqi they could find. They went from point A to point B to secure objective C and engaged any threats in their path! What are they going to do? Go around the enemy and leave whole intact units to harass the flanks or supply lines? What a revolutionary military doctrine! I think the french used that one in WW2 (just kidding). The speed of the invasion was the reason why it was such an unmitigated success. The front lines moved so rapidly that the Iraqi commanders had no situational awareness and could not mount a cohesive resistance.

quote:

- American indiscriminate fire killed many civilians who happened to be nearby when American troops were engaged by small groups of Arab volunteers. Women, children and grandpas who were walking by, or driving in cars were shot without any apparent reason. This hints to non-professionalism, racism ("let's kill them, they are only Arabs") and naivety of American soldiers. There were many reports by the embedded journalists about trigger-happy Americans. The US military command may be ultimately responsible for these civilian deaths because they didn't strictly limit the rules of engagement. This is in huge contrast to some previous wars where the American military had a high level of professionalism, and genuine concern for minimizing unnecessary casualties: http://www.snipersparadise.com/articles/operatio.htm This account is just the opposite of the American carelessness in Iraq. Perhaps the American troops got insufficient training and briefing before invading Iraq, so they couldn't hold fire long enough in confusing situations.

War is hell ... yes there are going to be some mistakes made and there are going to be shites that are overexcessive in every country. There were strict rules of engagement as demonstrated by the military checkpoints death. Wave to stop ... shoot warning shots in the air ... fire at engine block ... fire at individuals. I think that you are incorrect in labelling the 250,000+ soldiers as being racist and that avoiding civilian casualties was not a major objective for the military command.

Iraqi Civilian Deaths? sure, lets talk iraqi civilian deaths...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...main/index.html

quote:

MAHAWIL, Iraq (CNN) -- The head of an Iraqi forensic team said Wednesday he expects to find as many as 15,000 bodies buried at mass graves about 55 miles (90 kilometers) south of Baghdad. Hundreds of relatives of missing Iraqis gathered at the site in Mahawil, seeking to find out the fate of their loved ones. The forensic team has uncovered 1,500 bodies so far, identifying only a fraction of them. (Gallery: Images from Mahawil, On the Scene: Jane Arraf) The bodies are mostly of Iraqi Shiites who died in an uprising against Saddam Hussein following the 1991 Persian Gulf War, according to Human Rights Watch spokesman Peter Bouckaert and local officials. Bouckaert said the crude means of uncovering the bodies -- with a bulldozer -- was destroying evidence from the burials. He cited the example of an Iraqi identity document, with its number still intact, blowing away in the wind. "This little piece of information could actually have led a family to recover the skeleton of their relative, but because it's blown away from this pile -- as we see stuff blowing around all over the place -- that family probably won't have the answer they seek here today," he said. Touring the site Wednesday, Ahmad Chalabi, head of the opposition Iraqi National Congress, said the mass grave was evidence supporting the U.S.-led military action to remove Saddam from power.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter It is better to die for a chance at freedom than to live a life rendered meaningless by tyranny.

Easy to say when you've never actually been faced with the choice. We all like to think we'd be heroes when faced with a situation like that, but not many people are. Life isn't Hollywood.

Why don't you tell us all about the time you died for something you believed in.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.