100.000 deaths in iraq?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Don't panic, Oct 28, 2004.

  1. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #1
    according to an estimate which will be published on lancet next week, the iraq invasion has caused around 100.000 deaths, inclunding very large numbers of women and children. Lancet is a very prestigious medical journal, and what they publish is strictly peer-reviewed, so it is unlikely that the number is way off-mark. but even if it was 50% off it would still be a mind-boggling number of deaths.

    link
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    Horrendous if true. We were always being told by aplogists that SH would have killed many more if he had stayed in power. This is patently untrue.

    100,000 people have died for the vanity of one man.
     
  3. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #3
    Senseless loss of life on both sides.

    Thought the "new military" was to limit civilian deaths.

    If our actions in Iraq are an out right lie, I hope war criminal charges are brought against our administration officials.
     
  4. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #4
    yeah, people are sure "shocked and awed" alright...at our arrogance and with our incompetence.

    When I first read the thread, I thought for sure that many, if not most of those deaths would be from disease or malnutrition resulting from the post-Hussein chaos...imagine my surprise to find that they are mostly violent deaths. Hard to give dead Iraqis Democracy.

    winning hearts and minds I see...
     
  5. hcuar macrumors 65816

    hcuar

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Dallas
    #5
    Contrast

    1 campaign or battle in WWI or WWII would take over 100,000 lives.
     
  6. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    #6
    So? Is that supposed to be an excuse for the death of 100,000 people?
     
  7. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #7
    Hey you forgot to mention Verdun, the Battle of the Somme or the Rape of Carthage. You see how much can be excused if only you apply a little historical prospective?
     
  8. applemacdude macrumors 68040

    applemacdude

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Location:
    Over The Rainbow
  9. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #9
    If you want to put it into perspective, what is the population of the USA vs Iraq? Isn't the US 12x Iraq, so that 100,000 becomes 1,200,000 if it happened here. Think about that, over a million Americans dead at the hands of a foreign power.
    Worse yet, that is just the number so far. How many more will die on both sides before we're done? And for what? No WMD, no Al Quaeda, and now we can't even say that we were saving them from Saddam as we've killed more than he could have.
     
  10. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #10
    Contrast? More like apology.

    If I murder someone, maybe the judge will let me off if I point out there were so many other, much more prolific killers throughout history.
     
  11. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    You've got it all wrong: it's to limit military deaths. Civilians don't count, especially when they talk funny.
     
  12. toontra macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #12
    Exactly. The way the US used (and is still using) bombing in dense urban areas is shameful, and I have to say cowardly and cynical. The use of "shock and awe" should have sickened every decent person. Instead the US military and politicians were almost bragging about it. This was the biggest turkey-shoot of all time, except that the turkeys were mainly women & children. Perhaps in a "conventional" war the dropping of massive bombs on cities could be condoned, but when you are purporting to be liberating the very people you are massacring the whole process must be considered war crime.

    The way I se it is this: if a war is truly worth fighting then you should be prepared for loss of life in the course of ground combat. We were told it was all "precision" bombing. Well, surprise surprise, just as the "intelligence" on WMD and ties with Al Qaida was all crap, it turns out there have been over 100,000, the majority violent, civilian deaths, mostly women and children - LINK

    And there are still people in the US going to vote for Bush next week? Shame on you!!!
     
  13. Chappers macrumors 68020

    Chappers

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Location:
    At home
    #13
    What no war supporters to defend this tragedy.
     
  14. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #14
    First let me say that I find it rather offensive that the tone of this thread is that the military would intentionally target civilians. I have served in our military, and it doesn't happen. Well, you will always have a cowboy that wants to act like an ass, but in general, no, it doesn't happen.

    Question. Where do you guys think the bad guys are hiding? They are not out in the desert where we can just go carpet bomb them, they are in civilian areas, and sadly, there is colateral damage that occurs from targeting those certain individuals.

    That 100,000 number is all civilian deaths, not just at the hands of the US military.
     
  15. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #15
    No one I think is saying that the military targeted civilians.

    What is a shame is that it appears that we have been lied to, and the Iraqi people have been lied to. With 100K+ deaths on both sides. All for some "bloodlust" thoughts of doing the right thing. I am not talking of the troops. I am talking about all those that lied it seems about the need to rush to war. Two wrongs do not make a right (unless you happen to be on the Right, then all bets are off).
     
  16. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #16
    I have to laugh everytime i see another Bush commercial blasting Kerry on not waiting on the Facts about those tons of missing weapons Yet he didnt have any facts when he went into Iraq. All we ever heard was the administration spin and constant WMDs,WMDs,WMDs. Heck it made me think they had info on WMDs when they didnt have squat. Who didnt have the facts mr president. Its sad so many have died for this arrogant ignorant president who even now insists has never been wrong. :eek: not leadership but incompetance. 1,000s of our own dead,billions spent on this crap instead of in America, Bin Laden roams free....... America can do better then reelecting these two draft dodgers again. Chickenhawks find it easy to send others to die for their spin. Vietnam should have taught George & Dick something but they were so busy dodging the draft they missed the lesson. history repeated itself.
     
  17. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #17
    No one's blaming the military for targeting civilians, it's the administration that's telling them to target these areas that's offensive.

    The White House. Golf courses. Board rooms.

    The report said most of the increase was attributable to violent deaths at the hands of the US military.
     
  18. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #18
    BTTM, did you read the article? 'Cause what you said makes it seem as though you haven't.

     
  19. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #19
    I do believe that it is against the Geneva Conventions to bomb the populace that you occupy.
     
  20. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    Let me see: 95% of 100,000 is, um, somewhere in the region of 95,000 in old currency. 95,000 civilian deaths caused by bombing and helicopter gunships, and people are still saying civilians are not being deliberately targeted? Come on now, that's ridiculous! Your pilots are shooting anything that moves: that is deliberate targeting. THIS CONSTITUTES A WAR CRIME. The Geneva Convention specifically requires discriminate targeting, and maximum protection of civilian populations under occupation. On both counts, the US in particular is undoubtedly guilty as hell, even if the invasion/occupation/war is seen as legal, which is probably not the case. If the invasion/occupation/war is accepted as illegal, then besides the WAR CRIMES alluded to above, we have to add MASS MURDER, ILLEGAL DETENTION, and WHOLESALE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. The catalog goes on and on. I wonder what the bill for reparations would be? The bill Iraq was handed for its Kuwait adventure was $276 billion. We must be talking trillions here. Can you afford it?
     
  21. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #21
    And that was the point that I was trying to make over the US "modern military". We have been spoiled as a "populace" that modern military is "clean: Attacking only those that deserved to be "attacked".

    Remember that Bush and his people said that "basic" needs of the Iraqi people would be met fate the "shock & awe" of the attack. That promise has not been lived up to despite the "no-bid" contracts by this administrations before and after the war.

    Bush talks of Jesus, and his "personal redemption", it appears that Bush subscribes only to "his personal Jesus".

    I have said before in other forums that I would have loved the chance to be at St. Peter's side when Truman came to the gates of Heaven. Given the choice between Truman and Bush, i would rather see Bush try to worm his his way past St. Peter without his fathers help.

    Given the news that we have i would love to see Bush and his people charged with "war crimes".
     
  22. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #22
    You know, I had a discussion about this with some friends the other night and I found myself arguing this position:

    The US wishes to engage an enemy. We have the most sophisticated and effective traditional military force, with highly technological and destructive weaponry.

    Our enemy is obviously outmatched in these regards. They eschew traditional military engagement for a tactic of urban guerilla warfare in their own towns and cities.

    This presents a difficult choice for the US. To engage the enemy effectively and morally would require slow and difficult urban pacification by large number of troops. We would be at a disadvantage here, as we are not as well trained for such endeavors and we will be in unfamiliar terrain. The amount of US casaulties would be very high.

    Or, we could play to our strengths and bomb the areas, killing some enemy combatants and some civilians. US casualties would be low. Morally speaking, it is not as good of a choice. The destruction and civilian deaths will complicate long-term reconstruction efforts.

    So what are the US choices. The first option of deployment of ground troops to combat urban guerillas is not a workable option in a Democratic country, as the amount of US deaths incurred would be politically damaging. Even if it was doable, there is a good chance we would not win such an engagement.

    Or we could bomb them. From a perspective of wanting to win, this is a better option, although a morally dubious one. There is also a good chance that with a potentially unlimited recruitment base, that such a policy could galvanize enemy will against you, limiting your effectiveness and demanding at least some use of coventional urban pacification by groung troops to win. See option 1.

    Or we could do nothing. Or perhaps we could effect what we wanted through proxy, with an influx of cash and weapons to those locals who have the ability to help the US reach it's objectives. We could use diplomacy and sanctions. No US lives lost. As good a chance of effectiveness as the other strategies. We do not present ourselves as a combatant, and our enemy is fighting against someone else instead. The chances for civilian loss of life are still high, through death by malnutrition (sanctions) or by violent means by the proxy fighting force. The former can be mitigated by aid programs, which aid in good-will of the populace, and the latter are mitigated by the relative lack of use of bombs and high damage weapons and the fact that the people fighting are fighting in their own neighborhoods.

    Anyway, I guess the point is, that if you are the US, you better think long and hard about where to deploy your military power, as the costs are very high, both in moral capital and overall effectiveness.

    It also seems that Diplomacy is a more effective option than many are lead to believe.

    But I rant...
     
  23. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #23
    Here's your first oversight: you can't divorce the effect from the cause. Iraq was NOT "an enemy". The whole invasion and occupation was illegal, based on deceit, and carried out with complete political incompetence. In these circumstances, any amount of firepower will not avail you. YOU are the enemy.

    As any grossly outgunned resistance would.

    Tough. Recommended manpower levels (at least 400,000 men, by the look of things) would have enabled proper policing to take place, and would thus have prevented the worst of this. Unfortunately, your troops seem singularly ill-equipped to carry out policing duties, and anyway there are far too few of them, so that the only option left to avoid military and political defeat is to attempt wholesale indiscriminate slaughter from the air, in the hope of terrorizing the populace into submission. Because - let's be realistic here for a moment - it's not just "terrorists" and "insurgents" who are fighting, it's everybody who has lost a relative or friend to the US killing machine. Multiply the number of dead by the number in their households, and you have up to a million Iraqis with ample motive to kill. It's not going to get any easier.

    Jesus, re-engage the heart, man! You're beginning to dissociate! "Complication" is a little mild, don't you think? :rolleyes:

    The obvious choice is not to start a war. Sorry to be stating the obvious, but I thought you were giving the options undue prominence without emphasizing enough the role of diplomacy, political savvy or legality.

    You do, and I can quite see why. :)
     
  24. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #24
    To be fair I did not look at the article. Of the 100K+ deaths, how many are being placed against the "insurgents". I say "insurgents" only since we invaded a "sovereign" state; without "true "provocation".

    Based on "world evidence" Afghanistan was a "provocateur" in the "War On Terrorism:. It does seem that the reason to go to war against Iraq (with a potential loss of 100K+ lives) was a hoax.

    Also given that the press has ignored the FBI investigation into the Halliburton "no-bid' contracts; one has to wonder where the priorities truly lie. So much for he "Liberal" bias.

    To some of us this goes beyond the Left and Right.
     
  25. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #25
    Skunk,

    I was not adressing Iraq in specifics here, although I concede since the thread was talking about it, that it was probably implied.

    I was talking about any potential engagement. I disagree with the war in Iraq, as I agree they were not the enemy. I merely wanted to talk about the options the US would have to consider in preparing for a hypothetical engagement. I also said that considering the relative cost/benefit ratio of war in general that the US should enter into conflict only after thinking about it long and hard, as a last resort.

    Needless to say, I am in agreement with all of your stated positions on this matter Skunk, I was merely trying to highlight how the US got here from a strategic choice standpoint. These choices assume that the political choices of who constitutes the enemy have already been made.

    I am sorry to have written such a confusing post. It is just when you hear news about the US (or anyone) causing such a level of civilian deaths, it is not because they are necessarily psychotic or malicious, but because they have a limited number of options to consider to acheive their goal. The disassociation you commented on me having, is actually a reflection of me describing the necessary mentalitity by the military to achieve it's objectives, divorced from any morality.

    I thought I made a fairly strong impliance of the futility of war under such circumstances, or indeed in general and the effectiveness of diplomacy to acheive such ends, but I guess not...

    sorry for confusion...
     

Share This Page