Iraqi death toll

[Cain]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

Re: moral relativism:

Of course, the fact that it happens in every war doesn’t count does it?

Of course not.

Now there or illegal wars and legal wars which of course depends on who is for or against it.

Whatever that means. I thought Ms. Cleo distinguished between war and terrorism on grounds that the former has rules. The rationale for our illegal violation of international law (initially, at least) hinged on Saddam's violations of international law.

Let’s forget the fact that 'collateral' casualties happen in every war but since we don’t agree with the war let’s say they where brutally murdered.

I fail to see how this is a credible excuse.

From the article, some of these casualties were not directly caused by US bombs or bullets, such as exploding Iraqi ammo and friendly fire.

Wait a second- if you want to count deaths from the war, you can't restrict the toll simply to those who died directly by US bombs or bullets. If you attack a water treatment plant, for example, you can't only count the three or four people inside the building at the time.

This is to say nothing of 30 plus years of having a brutal dictator who had no value on the life of his own people.

Yet we had no problem supporting that brutal dictator, arguably at the height of his atrocities. Hell, Rumsfeld, as I've said on this very board, was Reagan's special ambassador to the middle east and opened up relations with Saddam (there are pictures of the two shaking, but that history is never seen on American television or inside American newspapers).

ftp://12.46.132.2/Demos/Cain/Rumsfield.jpg

 

[Baker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

I fail to see how this is a credible excuse.

Its not an excuse just a fact.

Wait a second- if you want to count deaths from the war, you can't restrict the toll simply to those who died directly by US bombs or bullets. If you attack a water treatment plant, for example, you can't only count the three or four people inside the building at the time.

I wasn’t referring to water plants just the exploding Iraqi ammo and friendly fire not counting those shot for deserting or showing support the coalition.

Yet we had no problem supporting that brutal dictator, arguably at the height of his atrocities. Hell, Rumsfeld, as I've said on this very board, was Reagan's special ambassador to the middle east and opened up relations with Saddam (there are pictures of the two shaking, but that history is never seen on American television or inside American newspapers).

ftp://12.46.132.2/Demos/Cain/Rumsfield.jpg

I know Reagan believe Saddam to be the lesser of two evils in the Iraq, Iran war and even if he was, I didn’t agree with it.

 

[Gregor]

Anyone who even uses the terms "illegal war" in taking a position demonstrates that they understand neither word.

It seems that people vehemently opposed to the war are getting more and more desparate to find reasons for their opposition and are hyperbolizing facts from the war when 'doom predictions' did not occur.

While I personnally did not agree in advance that the benefits outweighed the expenses and risks, it seems to have been unquestionably successful - so far.

 

[Tricky]

With all respect, I find outrageous to equate war casualties with the victims of terrorism.

War is a very bad thing but it has its rules. Terrorism is the ultimate violence that doesn't mean to harm only the "targets" . The targets are the medium to control the majority with the most powerful weapon:fear. Terrorism has no rules.

Hello Cleopatra. I hope you don't think I was ignoring you for fear of being thrown to the sacred crocodiles.

I would say that if a war has rules, then the US violated those rules. Inserting the word "war" does nothing to change the legitimacy of an attack. I am almost certain that the terrorists had proclaimed "war" on the US (and on Western civilization in general). They attacked two very legitimate targets: The heart of the financial world and the heart of the US military. (The third plane was probably headed for the White House to attack the "ruler" of the country). They have as much right to claim that the civilians were "collateral damage" as the US does for the Iraqi civilian death toll.

They are both wrong. Both of those "wars" were if not strictly illegal, then certainly unjustified. In light of the evidence that the US attack was unnecessary, then the US must be said to be as much a terrorist, based on death tolls, as the 9/11 hijackers.

So, if the numbers are true, yes, the casualties are high indeed, I am terribly sorry. I would be equally sorry if we were talking about 10 dead Iraquis.

But I can't equate War Casualties to the victims of 9/11 . I refuse to play the game of the terrorists.

That is exactly what I object to. I do not wish the US to become terrorists using the tu quoque of "They did it too!". I would prefer that the US keep the moral high ground which they had after the 9/11 attacks when most of the world rallied around them. In two short years, the US has surrendered that high ground and squandered the greatest international support they have ever had.

Does this mean I have sqandered my position close to your throne?

 

[Tricky]

Anyone who even uses the terms "illegal war" in taking a position demonstrates that they understand neither word.

Of course, "illegal" is a very iffy word because it depends on whose legal system you use. As mentioned in my previous post, the 9/11 terrorists almost certainly regarded their actions as "war".

It seems that people vehemently opposed to the war are getting more and more desparate to find reasons for their opposition and are hyperbolizing facts from the war when 'doom predictions' did not occur.

I said long before the war started that we would easily win the "war" but the "peace" would be a lot more difficult. My predictions have been shown to be precisely correct.

While I personnally did not agree in advance that the benefits outweighed the expenses and risks, it seems to have been unquestionably successful - so far.

I would disagree. I do not feel that the world is a safer place now than before the war, and heightened terrorist activity in recent days has done nothing to assuage those fears. We have shown that either Saddam did not have WMDs or that they are now in the hands of terrorists. We have all of the Middle East crying for the US to leave and let the fundamentalist Muslims take over the country. We may have stopped the "Butcher of Baghdad" from executing a lot of people, but to do that, we had to kill a whole lot of people. This does not meet my definition of "successful".

 

[crackmonkey]

So - you apparently think that the war on Iraq was comparable to 9/11? You seriously believe that a war against Saddam (after a decade of asking him to comply with an agreement he signed, and stating clearly that if he did not, hostilities would recommence) is similar to a sneak attack against a civilian target by terrorists using hijacked airlines?
Seriously?

 

[Cleopatra]

Hmmmm.... Monsieur Tricky it seems that you sit too close to the throne.. my beauty must have blinded you... otherwise I can't find any other logical explanation to your attitude towards such a serious matter...

If USA or any other country violates the "rules of the game" that is called War, our world can provide all the necessary ...antibiotics. This is why the International Court in Hague exists.

Iraq, was expecting the attack because "the enemy", following the rules, has warned it.

USA has explained many times in the International Community why they declared the War-regardless if the International Community found those reasons satisfying ...

Not to mention that countries don't really need the permission of the International Community to hit other countries, unless they are seeking for allies.

Terrorism on the other hand is another thing.

Let me use a different example. Let's say that the two of us, lived in the same city, where everybody was free to listen to the music he wanted and he was free to create fan clubs to support his favourite music style....

What if I locked you in my basement, tortured you ( admit that you would enjoy this... ) and made you listen to MY favourite kind of music. In the mean time, I would made our fellow citizens believe that whoevers rejects my favourite music might be in trouble...

Who knows what happened to Monsieur Tricky... Maybe he died because he was listening to the wrong kind of music...

If those people, instead of killing innocent civilians chose to go in front of WTC and burnt themselves in public to make people listen... then, I would respect them.Then, their sacrifice would have some nobility.

Now ,they have chosen a method of action that - strictly legally speaking- doesn't distinguish them from serial killers who want to turn their personal psychological problem to a problem of the community......


PS. I feed the Royal crocodiles with Austalian meat...
What made you think that you earned your seat close to the throne because of your wit... I find male intelligence completely useless.. it was this lovely blue suit you wear in your avatar that stole my innocent and sensitive heart...

Now let me concentrate on the stranger from UK....

 

[Tricky]

Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

Hmmmm.... Monsieur Tricky it seems that you sit too close to the throne.. my beauty must have blinded you... otherwise I can't find any other logical explanation to your attitude towards such a serious matter...

If USA or any other country violates the "rules of the game" that is called War, our world can provide all the necessary ...antibiotics. This is why the International Court in Hague exists.

Iraq, was expecting the attack because "the enemy", following the rules, has warned it.

USA has explained many times in the International Community why they declared the War-regardless if the International Community found those reasons satisfying ...

The IC has no more power than the UN to punish rule-breakers unless the countries involved give it that power.

While Iraq certainly must have expected the attack (like almost everyone else in the world), this in no way says that the attack was warranted. The US invaded in defiance of the UN, not in accord with it. (Not that the US pays much attention to UN resolutions anyway).

Terrorism on the other hand is another thing.

And terrorism is a very difficult thing to define, as we have seen from several threads here. Bear in mind that I don't support this point of view, but I recognize that from the point of view of the 9/11 terrorists, they were attacking legitimate targets. I disagree with this stance. From the point of view of the US, it is okay to knowingly cause civilian casualties for even the smallest suspicion (from our not-very-good intelligence) that there may have been a military target hidden there. I also disagree with this stance.

Let me use a different example. Let's say that the two of us, lived in the same city, where everybody was free to listen to the music he wanted and he was free to create fan clubs to support his favourite music style....

What if I locked you in my basement, tortured you ( admit that you would enjoy this... ) and made you listen to MY favourite kind of music. In the mean time, I would made our fellow citizens believe that whoevers rejects my favourite music might be in trouble...

Who knows what happened to Monsieur Tricky... Maybe he died because he was listening to the wrong kind of music...

If by this analogy you are saying that the war was justified because Saddam was a brutal dictator, then I would say you have a point. But unless the US is prepared to take out all the brutal dictatorships (like our friends, the Saudis), then it is hypocritical to single out one based on what appears to be very shoddy evidence.

If those people, instead of killing innocent civilians chose to go in front of WTC and burnt themselves in public to make people listen... then, I would respect them.Then, their sacrifice would have some nobility.

It might be noble, but it would accomplish little or nothing towards their goal. I would agree that it would be a wonderful world if all the disagreements could be solved by symbolic gestures. Personally, I'd love to have seen Dubya go one-on-one with Saddam to settle things, but this sort of thing doesn't happen in the real world.

Now ,they have chosen a method of action that - strictly legally speaking- doesn't distinguish them from serial killers who want to turn their personal psychological problem to a problem of the community.

And I feel that Bush was carrying out a personal vendetta against a man who tried to kill his father, another mark of a personal psychological problem. He made no pretense of trying to capture Saddam and make him stand trial for his crimes. He sent in bunker-busters to kill him and anyone who happened to be near.

But I think most people are missing the point of this thread. I wish to keep the USA from joining Al Qaeda as a symbol of international terrorism. Because of this war, many will regard us as that... and it was not necessary.

PS. I feed the Royal crocodiles with Australian meat...

Wallaby damned!

What made you think that you earned your seat close to the throne because of your wit... I find male intelligence completely useless.. it was this lovely blue suit you wear in your avatar that stole my innocent and sensitive heart...

I thought it was our shared interest in Ambrose Bierce.

Innocent heart? Tell that to Marc Antony!

 

[Tony]

Re: Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

If by this analogy you are saying that the war was justified because Saddam was a brutal dictator, then I would say you have a point. But unless the US is prepared to take out all the brutal dictatorships (like our friends, the Saudis), then it is hypocritical to single out one based on what appears to be very shoddy evidence.

Since when are things black and white? Havent you heard of picking the fights you can win or (because americans dont tolerate high casualities) win easily?


And I feel that Bush was carrying out a personal vendetta against a man who tried to kill his father, another mark of a personal psychological problem.

Is that the same reason clinton carried out an attack on saddam? You just dislike Bush.


He made no pretense of trying to capture Saddam and make him stand trial for his crimes. He sent in bunker-busters to kill him and anyone who happened to be near.

Mabey because he recognizes that international courts, like nuremburg, are a farce

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Does anyone have a figure on how many the 'butcher of Baghdad' killed by the way? Even just an estimate?

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Does anyone have a figure on how many the 'butcher of Baghdad' killed by the way? Even just an estimate?

estimates?

http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000346.php

 

[Cleopatra]

Oh Tricky, don't make me defend Bush Administration... since I was so much against this war BUT the war against Terrorism is something else...

I am tireless when It comes to discussing Terrorism.

The US invaded in defiance of the UN, not in accord with it. (Not that the US pays much attention to UN resolutions anyway).

Well... legally speaking they don't have to... UN can't impose any rules to anybody...It doesn't have the jurisdiction.

And terrorism is a very difficult thing to define, as we have seen from several threads here. Bear in mind that I don't support this point of view, but I recognize that from the point of view of the 9/11 terrorists, they were attacking legitimate targets.

I am sorry but when it comes to crimes their definition and desciption must be a priori clear. Otherwise, if you don't believe so, don't use the word crime to describe terrorism. You may use the term heroic act...

I am sorry, I am not trying to play you dirty here but you can't have it all Tricky... It's the same argument I hear from pedophiliacs... They have difficulty in defying their crime.

In order to name something as CRIME you must have defined it and described it in advance. Crime is not an abstract Art movement or something...

I disagree with this stance. From the point of view of the US, it is okay to knowingly cause civilian casualties for even the smallest suspicion (from our not-very-good intelligence) that there may have been a military target hidden there. I also disagree with this stance.

Ok. I didn't accuse you of being fond of terrorism.

If by this analogy you are saying that the war was justified because Saddam was a brutal dictator, then I would say you have a point. But unless the US is prepared to take out all the brutal dictatorships (like our friends, the Saudis), then it is hypocritical to single out one based on what appears to be very shoddy evidence.

I know this argument I have used it too in various debates but here it's irrelevant I am afraid... I repeat.
Whether USA or any country was justified to attack Iraq, I can accept that the War wasn't justified- they followed the rules.
The war has rules. Now your taxes are used to feed the Iraquis because your country is going by the rules....

It might be noble, but it would accomplish little or nothing towards their goal.

And what have they accomplished?

I would agree that it would be a wonderful world if all the disagreements could be solved by symbolic gestures. Personally, I'd love to have seen Dubya go one-on-one with Saddam to settle things, but this sort of thing doesn't happen in the real world.

Since you agree that our world is not a fairy tale, why do you have so much difficulty in accepting the difference between War and Terrorism ?

And I feel that Bush was carrying out a personal vendetta against a man who tried to kill his father, another mark of a personal psychological problem. He made no pretense of trying to capture Saddam and make him stand trial for his crimes. He sent in bunker-busters to kill him and anyone who happened to be near.

You know by my posts in other threads that I refuse to make comments on elected leaders. I respect them. I just refuse to accept dictators.

But I think most people are missing the point of this thread. I wish to keep the USA from joining Al Qaeda as a symbol of international terrorism. Because of this war, many will regard us as that... and it was not necessary.

I am not sure I got it...

I thought it was our shared interest in Ambrose Bierce.

Like War... mon cher like War...

Bierce, is only the ... pretence

Innocent heart? Tell that to Marc Antony!

Oh dear! Are you a mind reader too? It was exactly Marc Anthony that I was having in ming when I was talking about my innocent heart...

 

[peptoabysmal]

When Iraq gets back on it's feet and the citizens can afford automobiles, they will probably lose around this many per year in automobile accidents. Where are the marches against automobiles? We lose roughly 40,000 per year to this "killer' in the U. S. alone.

Has anyone really made themselves believe that a war can take place without civilian casualties? I think the troops went above and beyond what any country in the history of modern war has ever done to protect as many civilians as possible. Imagine how it would have turned out if Saddam's army were allowed to pull back into Baghdad and fight in the streets. We'd probably still be there trying to root them out, and the civilian death toll could have climbed to the tens of thousands.

Meanwhile, frothing-at-the-mouth fundamentalist Islamic terrorists are deliberately targeting civilians, and the world seems OK with this? What's wrong with this picture??

Whether or not the war itself was justified is another matter. However, I do note that the war protesting has gone on much longer than the war itself, in direct contrast to the Vietnam war.

 

[Genghis Pwn]

I bet the actual number of civilian collateral damage deaths is somewhere between 100 and 200, at the most.

 

[Earthborn]

Actually according to this website it is between 4065 and 5223. Reported deaths, there are undoubtedly an unknown number which are not counted at all, or people who are not counted by this site because they did die because of indirect causes. According to their press section 200 died because of cluster bombing alone...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

When Iraq gets back on it's feet and the citizens can afford automobiles, they will probably lose around this many per year in automobile accidents. Where are the marches against automobiles? We lose roughly 40,000 per year to this "killer' in the U. S. alone.

Just to pick on this particular argument, would you accept that by exactly the same argument the 9/11 hijackings were trivial?

 

[Cain]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Iraqi death toll

Its not an excuse just a fact.

Precisely: it's a fact, not a value. If all societies up to the present practiced slavery, then would that be a good argument for slavery? If every culture known up the present regards women as inferior to men, does that excuse current policies? No, of course not. It's an irrelevant fact.

Anyone who even uses the terms "illegal war" in taking a position demonstrates that they understand neither word.

Complete and utter nonsense. Of course, there's no support, just vague criticisms of a broad and diverse anti-war movement. Witness:

It seems that people vehemently opposed to the war are getting more and more desparate to find reasons for their opposition and are hyperbolizing facts from the war when 'doom predictions' did not occur.

Yet, my observation that "nearly all apologists for the (indisputably) illegal war in Iraq" gets met with silly comments like "mass mind reading." Who among the war planners, or any voice in favor of war, reminded us that Iraqis are equal in worth to American soldiers? I highly doubt anyone can name a single person, but in the off-chance that they could, I qualified my statement to "nearly all," which seems more than fair. It's an unstated, unchallenged assumption we bring to every war.

 

[Gregor]

M. Cain

Obviously, you are ignorant of the terms "illegal" and "war" - and I don't mean that as an ad hominem attack, "ignorant" in the sense of "not knowing" the definition. Such statements are Hollywood sound-bite platitudes without substance.

Legal systems require a (i) closed group, (ii) with common standards of conduct, (iii) that are agreed (or adopted) by everyone in the group, and (iv) the violation of which can be adjudicated and punished by a government that is separate from and controlling over the group.

By definition, two sovereign (catch that key word, there) countries are open groups, without common, agreed standards, with no supreme executive above them.

"War" by sovereign states is contrary to almost all terms of "legal."

You can call the Iraqi war:

1. "unfair" (subjective to you)
2. "unsupported" by five members of the United Nations Security Council (so?)
or
3. "un-unanimous" in world opinion

But you can't call it "illegal". Even if there were a UN treaty saying that no nation could attack another without a 9-0 vote of the Security Council (there isn't), the US could chose to withdraw from the treaty, thus breaking terms iii and iv from the definition of "legal."

And Earthborn - methinks that a web site named "iraqibodycount.com" is probably not an objective source for war dead - but that's obviously speculation on my part (I haven't the time to meticulously research their sources).

 

[Earthborn]

Legal systems require a (i) closed group, (ii) with common standards of conduct, (iii) that are agreed (or adopted) by everyone in the group, and (iv) the violation of which can be adjudicated and punished by a government that is separate from and controlling over the group.

These standards make no sense. How can you make a legal system requiring everyone to agree on it? It would mean that if only one person in society disagrees with a certain law, it the legal system doesn't exist.

Even if there were a UN treaty saying that no nation could attack another without a 9-0 vote of the Security Council (there isn't), the US could chose to withdraw from the treaty, thus breaking terms iii and iv from the definition of "legal."

So can I choose to withdraw from the 'treaty' that prohibits theft and legally steal?

By definition, two sovereign (catch that key word, there) countries are open groups, without common, agreed standards, with no supreme executive above them.

Never heard of the United Nations?

methinks that a web site named "iraqibodycount.com" is probably not an objective source for war dead

Then just call it 'iraqiciviliancollateraldamage.com'. Same thing, only with a euphemism.

I haven't the time to meticulously research their sources

Just remember that they use many sources, many of which you would undoubtedly consider credible, and give a minimum and maximum number of casualties reported. That way you everyone can agree on the number. Many newscasts use their number, some to argue that the deathtoll is unacceptably high, others to argue that modern weaponry really is smarter than the carpet bombings of the past...

 

[Gregor]

Earthborn - you obviously don't understand the concept of jurisprudence. "Legal" standards are found in statutes adopted by legislatures and enforced by executive branches of government.

I have shown that 'sovereign' states are not subject to the laws that individuals are. The UN is not the same as the Netherland's government and stealing - it's really quite simple.

If you don't understand the concept of sovereignty, we can't talk much more.