War, Casualties, Saddam, Bush, Etc.

[blike]

I still don't see an article which claims over 20,000 deaths. Indeed, the UN. resolution states 500,000 casualties as a pre-war guess, and even then those are injuries, not deaths.

 

and bush was willing to kill that many iraqis because, hey, who cares about them?

 

Innocent deaths are an unfortunate, sad consequence of war. No one is disputing that. You cannot always quantify the justification of a war by how many civilians were killed. In WW2 there were millions of civilians killed. Unjust?

[LuTze]

You cannot always quantify the justification of a war by how many civilians were killed. In WW2 there were millions[/i']of civilians killed

True, you can't. But you can look at the way both sides talk about it.

 

Not directly related to Dubya or the events of Operation Iraqi Freedom, but Colin Powell (Yes, the same Colin seen as one of the more resonable men in Dubya's government) said after Iraq War I when asked how many casualties he thought had been inflicted on Iraqi civilians and military - "Frankly, that’s not a figure I’m very much interested in". He was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the American Army at the time.

 

That was under Grandady Bush, of course. Dubya does keep a lot of the same cronies and hawks around him, though.

[budullewraagh]

pre-war guess

the united nations do not guess.

[LuTze]

the united nations do not guess.

Yes, they do. It was an estimate of casuaties before the war started. You won't find an accurate figure on the number of deaths because the Pentagon hasn't released any.

 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0503-02.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1021-01.htm

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/2004/02/001657.html

 

See?

[budullewraagh]

the united nations make estimates but never guess

[LuTze]

the united nations make estimates but never guess

Same difference, they were still wrong. Give it up.

[budullewraagh]

not necessarily. people haven't been counted really. theyve been estimated by biased sources. history is always written by the victors. we don't hear much of the atrocities in japan (firebombings) and the bombing of civilian targets in germany, now do we?

 

the united states was in a bad situation in vietnam, and finally withdrew, leaving vietnam in chaos. vietnam saw 4,000,000 vietnamese casualties in all, but we dont hear much of that, now do we? no, because vietnam still hasn't fully repaired itself and has little political influence.

[Sayonara]

Innocent deaths are an unfortunate, sad consequence of war. No one is disputing that. You cannot always quantify the justification of a war by how many civilians were killed. In WW2 there were millions [/i']of civilians killed. Unjust?

World War II was an absolutely inevitable conflict and was recognised as such by many governments.

 

Iraq is not a war, it is an occupation, and as we discussed at great length in the "Those against the war in Iraq" thread, it was largely... evitable.

[LuTze]

We should probably get back on topic now.

[DreamLord]

And then what did they do about it?

 

Nothing. That's the point. There are still terrorists in Saudi Arabia. We know it, and yet we do not do anything about. What gives Bush the right to decide who should be stopped and who should be allowed to continue acts like this? I guess it just depends on who gives him more, right?

[blike]

the united nations do not guess.

 

“Likely Humanitarian Scenarios” estimated that an American invasion of Iraq will [/i']result in some 500,000 casualties

 

Pre-war estimate.

 

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - As many as half a million Iraqis could require medical treatment as a result of serious injuries suffered in the early stages of a war on Iraq, U.N. emergency planners said in a document disclosed Tuesday.

 

Pre-war estimate.

 

 

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=17493

 

No stats here.

 

http://www.un.org/News/ossg/sg/index.shtml

 

Nothing here either.

 

theyve been estimated by biased sources.

 

If anything IraqBodyCount.net is an anti-war organization. The claim of 500,000 is unsubstantiated.

[budullewraagh]

iraqbodycount is actually a conservative site posing as an anti-war site.

 

for the sake of arguement, tell me this; with the united nations estimating 500,000 casualties, would you have gone to war?

[blike]

iraqbodycount is actually a conservative site posing as an anti-war site.

 

Did you do a personal investigation or something? Any way to back up that claim?

 

with the united nations estimating 500,000 casualties, would you have gone to war?

 

500,000 casualties, not deaths. And if I thought Saddam was a threat to my nation's security, then yes, I would have gone to war in a heartbeat.

[budullewraagh]

500,000 casualties, not deaths.

heh, lovely. say 1 in every 3 died. hmm, thats still a few hundred thousand isn't it?

 

And if I thought Saddam was a threat to my nation's security

ah but he wasn't, and we all know that that excuse was completely manufactured propaganda.

 

if you still say yes, would you have changed your attack plans at all to reduce iraqi civilian deaths?

[-Demosthenes-]

ah but he wasn't' date=' and we all know that that excuse was completely manufactured propaganda.

 

if you still say yes, would you have changed your attack plans at all to reduce iraqi civilian deaths?[/quote']

 

We probably could have over run the whole place in a couple of days, but they did it slowly and planned it very carefully just for that reason.

[john5746]

My reasons for leaning toward Kerry.

 

Iraq war: This was a mistake, but hey the military did their job well, kicked butt: mission done. What are they doing now? Politics is determining every step for the military. Shoot, don’t shoot, etc. Sounds familiar? They need to withdraw sooner, not later. The only priority should be to get the Iraqi govt to take care of security. I think Kerry, being a new President, will be able to get the troops home sooner.

 

War on Terrorism: Iraq out of the picture, we can finally get back to concentrating on Osama. If the Iraq war didn’t happen: Saddam would still be in power, yes and Osama would be dead. Al-Queda would be even more diminished also.

 

Budget Deficit: Repealing the tax cuts would help get us back on track fiscally. Kerry would also cut some of the stupid weapons ol’ Senator Redneck Coon Dawg kept blasting about at the RNC. Do we need a billion dollar plane to kill terrorists?

 

Stem Cell Research: No more stupidity regarding this issue.

 

Environment: Global Warming is real. America needs to lead a War against Global Warming. We also need to find alternative sources of energy.

 

Education: Get rid of the ‘No Child Left Behind’ nonsense. Kerry may support this, but he doesn’t have as much in it as Bush. When it is seen as a failure, he will be more likely to end it. Some children and their parents want to be left behind. Look at Zell Miller for example.

[budullewraagh]

We probably could have over run the whole place in a couple of days, but they did it slowly and planned it very carefully just for that reason.

slowly? planning? the united nations said "if you go into iraq as you say you are going to, you will cause 500,000 civilian casualties".

[-Demosthenes-]

If the Iraq war didn’t happen: Saddam would still be in power, yes and Osama would be dead. Al-Queda would be even more diminished also.

How do you know that? What is your reasoning behind this?

Global Warming is real. America needs to lead a War against Global Warming. We also need to find alternative sources of energy.

What does that have to do with Kerry?

[-Demosthenes-]

slowly? planning? the united nations said "if you go into iraq as you say you are going to, you will cause 500,000 civilian casualties".

I fail to see the connection. Saddam was a threat, a real threat. He was a tyrant, who are we to do nothing about it? Look what happened in WWII when we did nothing about Hitler until late in the game. So it was necessary. We did everything we could to make casualties low.

[budullewraagh]

I fail to see the connection. Saddam was a threat, a real threat.

oh dear, not this again. where was the threat? nukes? wait, he had none. wait, he wasn't even trying to make them. chemical weapons? wait, he only had one or two left over from when rumsfeld sold them in 1984. biological weapons? nope. did he have incentive to attack? nah. was he going to put his "massive" army onto boats and sail over to the states? i'd take awhile and we'd see it coming.

[john5746]

I fail to see the connection. Saddam was a threat, a real threat. He was a tyrant, who are we to do nothing about it? Look what happened in WWII when we did nothing about Hitler until late in the game. So it was necessary. We did everything we could to make casualties low.

 

Saddam was a threat to his neighbors, his people and Israel. But much less of a threat than in 90'. Iran and N.Korea are worse threats. We can't afford to overthrow every bad guy.

[budullewraagh]

saying that hussein was a threat to his neighbors and israel is like saying canada is a threat to the united states. seriously. he knew not to be aggressive anymore. as for the claim of him being a threat to his people, the only killings i have heard of were 5000 kurds 10 years ago, which, although bad, was not many casualties compared to those casued by the united states.

 

north korea is a threat directly because of the attack on iraq, unfortunately.

[blike]

iraqbodycount is actually a conservative site posing as an anti-war site.

 

Still waiting on any sort of confirmation on this.

 

completely manufactured propaganda.

 

Just wondering who it was that manufactured the propaganda and then convinced everyone to believe it.

 

slowly? planning? the united nations said "if you go into iraq as you say you are going to, you will cause 500,000 civilian casualties".

 

And then we went in and we didn't. I guess we planned a little better than they thought we would.

 

oh dear, not this again. where was the threat? nukes? wait, he had none. wait, he wasn't even trying to make them.

 

Yes he was. The fact that he got duped on the Uranium doesn't discount the fact that he sought uranium. Want to explain why he tampered with cameras and things at nuclear facilities? Maybe he was just looking for a little saturday night fun.

 

chemical weapons? wait, he only had one or two left

Try several thousand unaccounted for.

 

was he going to put his "massive" army onto boats and sail over to the states? i'd take awhile and we'd see it coming.

 

Perhaps thats what Bill Clinton thought about Osama.

 

saying that hussein was a threat to his neighbors and israel is like saying canada is a threat to the united states.

 

1991, Kuwait. Saddam sure learned his lesson, just look at how well he complied with the UN!

 

 

as for the claim of him being a threat to his people, the only killings i have heard of were 5000 kurds 10 years ago, which, although bad, was not many casualties compared to those casued by the united states.

 

Stop lying to yourself. You were wrong about that, how can you even make the same claim again?

 

In your next post please include the following:

 

1) Support for the notion that the US killed 500,000 Iraqis. Note: This support must come from current estimates on the death toll.

"the united nations stated before the war that as the united states was going to wage the war, around half a million iraqis would be killed."

Furthermore, you stated as fact that we killed "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis". Either admit you and the UN were wrong, or find some sources to back your claim up.

 

2) Support for the idea that iraqbodycount.net " is actually a conservative site posing as an anti-war site. "

[Mad Mardigan]

Let me tell you something about this war, most Iraqis are happy that we are there. My brother was there for 1 year and 1 month. Most of them was happy that we freed them from Saddam. Only ones that hate it is the Shi Ites which was Saddams choosen people that he gave favor to.

[Skye]

You mean the sunnis, rather than shiites.