Stop counting!

[Peri]

It is amazing how your mind works. Because I state that there would have been no war if Bush had not been elected, I hero worship SH and believe that GWB is a terrorist and tyrant. Truly remarkable.

 

[amadeus]

You said yourself that George Bush, not Saddam Hussein, was the problem.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
You said yourself that George Bush, not Saddam Hussein, was the problem.

Pre-War: Iraquis have no free speach and regieme is brutal towards those who oppose it. People suffer under sanctions.

Post-War: American forces use excessive force against those who oppose them, killing many civilians. Additionally water and electricity supplies are often cut, plus great destruction to houses and infrastructure due to bombing. Iraquis have free speach to some extent, but whatever they say it has no effect anyway because the US is basically choosing who it wants to govern (and at the moment is governing itself anyway).

In conclusion: Life is bad under Saddam, life is bad after Saddam. Either way, your average Iraqui looses.

 

[amadeus]

How very short-sighted of you to not consider where Iraq will be in one year, five years, ten years, etc.

 

[Peri]

I said that George Bush was responsible for the invasion and the problems that it brought. It was your imagination which added the rest.
No one can be sure what Iraq will be like. You are only hoping with your fingers crossed.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Speedo
Knowing how many civilians were killed doesn't really do anything except tell the world how evil the big bad Americans really are

It is called checks and balances. I thought you Americans knew all about that.

 

[cgannon64]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
But I wonder: what good do the bodycounts do? The only potential purpose they could serve is by giving hatemongers rhetoric to use against the U.S., creating rebels against both the Iraqi authorities and the U.S., which would lead to more U.S. and civilian deaths in Iraq.

Or to let the truth be known.

But I guess those facts aren't important to you, rmsharpe.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by ComradeDavo

In conclusion: Life is bad under Saddam, life is bad after Saddam. Either way, your average Iraqui looses.

Nonsense; the US don't cut the water & electricity supply, terrorists do. The US don't torture. Even if there isn't a democratic government yet, chances are there will be one by late next year.
No-one's sure exactly how much damage American bombing did to Iraqi civilians, but if it had been major, chances are you'd have seen a lot more of it in the media - not to mention it can't possibly compare with Sddam's more egregious crimes such as the gassing of Halabja - 5,000 civilians in one go !

Like Peri said, I AM keeping my fingers crossed - there's a lot that still can go wrong. Still, with Saddam removed, your average Iraqi can at least hope for better days - to do so under Saddam would have been futile.

 

[Syterion]

How very short-sighted of you to not consider where Iraq will be in one year, five years, ten years, etc.

How very short-sighted of you to not consider that it has been 2 years since we invaded Afghanistan, and they are DEFINITELY not better than before. Instead of the Taliban in power, some good old benign druglords and ganglords are in power. Much better, especially along with large amounts of civilian deaths and destruction of many cities.

No-one's sure exactly how much damage American bombing did to Iraqi civilians, but if it had been major, chances are you'd have seen a lot more of it in the media - not to mention it can't possibly compare with Sddam's more egregious crimes such as the gassing of Halabja - 5,000 civilians in one go !

No one's sure? Why? Because they stopped counting. It could easily be over 10,000, but we do not know. If it was major, it wouldn't appear in the news, because in case you didn't know, bad mouthing the war doesn't go over well.

False. It is the Iraqis that have stopped the counting. Suggesting that it is the U.S. has done this is pure fiction.

Interesting argument. Next time, my advcie is to actually read the topic.

The order was relayed by the ministry's director of planning, Dr. Nazar Shabandar, but the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which oversees the ministry, also wanted the counting to stop, said Dr. Nagham Mohsen, the head of the ministry's statistics department.

I hope you see your error.

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by Syterion

No one's sure? Why? Because they stopped counting. It could easily be over 10,000, but we do not know. If it was major, it wouldn't appear in the news, because in case you didn't know, bad mouthing the war doesn't go over well.

It could easily be under 10,000 too, but we do not know . Personally, I think it's important to find out how many people died too, as I argued earlier in this thread. I do not, however, share your complete distrust of the media, but that may be because I tend to get my news from the Dutch media rather than the American.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

False. It is the Iraqis that have stopped the counting. Suggesting that it is the U.S. has done this is pure fiction.


A count was started BY Iraqis. Who stopped it? Abbas obviously did, though he denies it. Why would he deny it?

It seems obvious that the government is not acting in the interest of Iraq, it is acting in the interest of the USA. What ordinary Iraqi, picked off the street, would sign Abbas's prohibition of the count? What ordinary American would?

You see the difference.

No-one's sure exactly how much damage American bombing did to Iraqi civilians, but if it had been major, chances are you'd have seen a lot more of it in the media - not to mention it can't possibly compare with Sddam's more egregious crimes such as the gassing of Halabja - 5,000 civilians in one go !

So you're telling me that our current benchmark for accidental civilian deaths is to compare it to a deliberate atrocity?

Please, PLEASE tell me you didn't mean that.

"Oh, you know, we may have done some accidental bombing of Iraqi civilians, but it wasn't as bad as the Holocaust!"

Seriously...

 

[jack merchant]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

So you're telling me that our current benchmark for accidental civilian deaths is to compare it to a deliberate atrocity?

Please, PLEASE tell me you didn't mean that.

"Oh, you know, we may have done some accidental bombing of Iraqi civilians, but it wasn't as bad as the Holocaust!"

Seriously...

Seriously. Because the real comparison is not between possible accidental US bombing of civilians and deliberate genocide, it's between doing something about Saddam and doing nothing. Now war is a horrible business, and as much as I supported it for the sake of the Iraqi people (which was a judgment call, of course - my conclusion was that they'd be better off with a war and being rid of Saddam than with a continuation of the status quo) I did have a sinking feeling after seeing the footage of bombs & missiles hitting Baghdad and haven't felt comfortable about it since.

What puts me in an even more uncomfortable position is that the ridding of Saddam was achieved by a US administration (and the Brits, fo course) that I absolutely loathe and have no confidence whatsoever in when it comes to the rebuilding stage and the gathering of international support - and that lack of confidence has so far been mostly borne out by the facts on the ground; insufficient ground troops, the letting of contracts to Halliburton & KBR, a provisional government that seems similarly uninterested by the true number of deaths..... but still....

I have never lived under a dictatorship that could whisk me away in an instant for interrogation under torture, or that would use chemical weapons against me and my family, but somehow I do imagine that just about anything would be better than that..... Which is why I still stand behind my earlier position.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The real question is: who made you judge of other people's fates?

Obviously Saddam was a loathsome dictator and Iraq WILL be better off without him - probably despite, not because of, Mr. Bush's best "intentions" in rebuilding the nation - but it's not like YOUR life was hanging in the balance over the welfare of Iraq. Somehow I'd think the people who ended up getting bombs dropped on them in the name of freedom had a slightly higher stake in the issue than a casual spectator from the Netherlands or California.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you again, but we seem to be grasping at "the welfare of Iraq" as more of an excuse as opposed to a motive for this war.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by rmsharpe


Which is a statement that is entirely valid. Saddam Hussein started this war, he was the silent aggressor.

By letting the UN look basically anywhere they wanted for weapons? Or did he look at Georgey-boy funny?

 

[Enemy Ace]

There is no usefulness in knowing how many Iraqi civilians were killed, that is unless you plan to prosecute American leaders for the invasion of Iraq as a war crime.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Originally posted by Enemy Ace
There is no usefulness in knowing how many Iraqi civilians were killed, that is unless you plan to prosecute American leaders for the invasion of Iraq as a war crime.

If Americans are going to reserve the right to prosecute foreigners as war criminals, then they should open themselves up to prosecution as well. If they do not, then they lose massive credibility in their war on "terror". If they don't follow their own rules, why should anyone else?

 

[Enemy Ace]

Originally posted by Sobieski II
If they don't follow their own rules, why should anyone else?

Very simply, because we have all of the big guns.

 

[Ossric]

back to the original topic: according to Human Rights Watch, an estimate of more than 1000 civilians have died due to cluster bombs. Take it for what it's worth..

 

[ComradeDavo]

Originally posted by jack merchant


Nonsense; the US don't cut the water & electricity supply, terrorists do. The US don't torture. Even if there isn't a democratic government yet, chances are there will be one by late next year.
No-one's sure exactly how much damage American bombing did to Iraqi civilians, but if it had been major, chances are you'd have seen a lot more of it in the media - not to mention it can't possibly compare with Sddam's more egregious crimes such as the gassing of Halabja - 5,000 civilians in one go !

Like Peri said, I AM keeping my fingers crossed - there's a lot that still can go wrong. Still, with Saddam removed, your average Iraqi can at least hope for better days - to do so under Saddam would have been futile.

The USA has had many accusations laid against it that it has used torture in Afghanistan and in Guantamino Bay. Having seen footage on the News of the United States dealing with prisoners in the Guantamino Bay, then I must say that your claim the United States doesn't use torture is false.

As for the damage, well you merly need to view some of the foriegn media's coverage, rather than what the US/Uk has shown it's reporters.
You need to understand that the media in teh USA and UK is biased, and that their reporters are driven around the troops, and it is the troops who decide where to go and what to show them.

How very short-sighted of you to not consider where Iraq will be in one year, five years, ten years, etc.

Take one look at Afghanistan. It is a complete and utter mess. Your own army is afriad to leave it's bases because of how unsafe it is.