How Many Iraqis Have We Killed?

[Clancie]

Their dead leave corpses just like ours. So...why isn't there an available tally showing how many Iraqis we've killed since the war began? Even a very rough estimate?

We attacked Iraq. It would be useful, in terms of our own costs, to know how many dead and wounded Iraqis we're responsible for so far...civilians vs. military? how many women and children? a breakdown by age....Isn't that something Pentagon numbers crunchers (especially those justifying the hundreds of billions of dollars spent so far) should find useful to know?

[demon]

Well as General Tommy Franks, of US Central Command said :“We don’t do body counts”...that`s when it`s Iraqis of course.

One of the more respected sources for a tally of civilains killed in Iraq can befound here:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

edited to add:
Just incase anyone is under any illusions about how much the invaders care about those they are "liberating" then take note of the following.

The Carnage According to Gen. Kimmitt
Just Change the Channel
By VIRGINIA TILLEY

If any shred of moral authority remained to the US occupation of Iraq, it finally evaporated in a single historical phrase, at a press conference in Baghdad this Easter morning. For those who missed it, an Arab journalist had asked commanding Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt what people should understand about the US occupation from the images they were seeing of women and children killed in Fallujah, where over four hundred civilians have been killed and thousands wounded so far in the US attack to repress--who exactly? But the tall general had his answer. Nailing the journalist with flashing eye, he pronounced the measured solution to this moral dilemma: "Change...the...channel! Change...the...channel!"

http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley04152004.html

[hammegk]

Not enough of the ones who want kill us.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by demon
One of the more respected sources for a tally of civilains killed in Iraq can befound here:

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/



Yeah, just like rense.com is a 'respected' source of information.

[Earthborn]

Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) is indeed probably the best tally there is. Some people on this board however objected to their way of counting, because they also count civilian deaths that are not specifically to blame on the US led forces which means that they count more. They argue that such a tally should only include the deaths the US is responsible for, and not the deaths caused by terrorists fighting rebelling against the war the US started.

On the other hand it should be noted that they base their tally on the deaths that are reported in international media sources, which means that the deaths not reported in the media are not counted. So there is both over and under reporting in this tally.

It should also be noted that while the 10 000 civilian deaths caused by this war is a heck of a lot more than the people who advocated it admitted would happen, it is very low in comparison to other actions on such a scale. Still, that does not stop some people from claiming that it is an exaggerated figure. I sometimes get a feeling that they would claim the same thing if it was 1 instead.

[demon]

"Yeah, just like rense.com is a 'respected' source of information."

That`s right, shoot the messenger.
If the liberators and freedom bringers had an inclination to count how many they had killed then we would have another source, wouldn`t we?
As they don`t care about numbers what do you suggest? Or don`t you care about numbers either?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by demon

That`s right, shoot the messenger.

Right, because it is nothing more than a appeal to emotion argument against war. Perhaps if they documented ALL deaths in the Iraq war (i.e. U.S. soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, U.K. soldiers,.....etc) then they could be taken seriously, but the focus on only civilians is an obvious appeal to emotion.

If the liberators and freedom bringers had an inclination to count how many they had killed then we would have another source, wouldn`t we? As they don`t care about numbers what do you suggest? Or don`t you care about numbers either?

Sorry, but I think how and why people are killed is much more important than how many people are killed.

[demon]

"Perhaps if they documented ALL deaths in the Iraq war (i.e. U.S. soldiers, Iraqi soldiers, U.K. soldiers,.....etc) then they could be taken seriously, but the focus on only civilians is an obvious appeal to emotion."

Numbers of American and British casualties are well reported, there are no shortages of sources for these figures...if you are looking for an appeal to emotion then look no further than that.
I think they (Iraq Bodycount) are looking to redress the inbalance but I guess we wont agree on that.

"Sorry, but I think how and why people are killed is much more important than how many people are killed."

I don`t understand your point here, I`d like to though...please elaborate.

[The idea]

Originally posted by hammegk
Not enough of the ones who want to kill [citizens of the USA and residents of the USA and visitors to the USA].
Are you absolutely certain that the intention is all-important? What happens when a useful supergenius (who didn't bother to learn the fine points of handling explosives) blows up a whole gang of his co-conspirators? Does baby Jesus cry?

Would you have executed Al Capone before he became a big boss? How would you have known that he would become a big boss? If you would have executed him, is that because you have a phobia about the internal judicial procedures used by criminal organizations? Are you an intolerant mobophobe? What would you have done about the judges who intentionally permitted killers to go free in exchange for some money from Capone?

How do you feel about Al Capone's imprisonment on tax evasion charges? How would you like to be confined to a cell, as though you were an animal, when you were actually capable of working out with weights to stay healthy and setting a good example for kids who idolize mobsters; using a slide ruler; editing the Bible; and reading the sports pages of big city newspapers?

Is there any evidence that Capone ever pulled the trigger of a gun that took a human life? Remember, guns kill people and people kill people. Did Capone have an official capacity that permitted him to issue official commands? What is a command? Why would anyone have obeyed his so-called "commands"?

Are there written records that provide compelling evidence that Capone persuaded even one single person to shoot or stab anyone?

[shuize]

How many Iraqis Have We Killed?

If it's under 5,000 children per month, which the left assured us was the number dying under UN sanctions, I'd say they're better off.

[Tesserat]

I don't believe that the american military has no idea how many iraquis they've killed. It would seem to be very basic information necessary for planning what they'd be doing. I'd imagine that they'd have a pretty good idea of how many civilians the've killed as well.

But as with most things in this spin war, they can't say anything about it. Talking about it would inflame the Muslim world, or enrage the american public.


"The first casualty of war is the truth"

[Graham]

Originally posted by shuize


If it's under 5,000 children per month, which the left assured us was the number dying under UN sanctions, I'd say they're better off.

False dichotomy.

[shuize]

Originally posted by Graham


False dichotomy.

Not unless you think the sanctions would have been lifted without the war.

[Graham]

Originally posted by shuize


Not unless you think the sanctions would have been lifted without the war.

So you think there were zero other options than "US and its little coalition go to war" or "Continue sanctions forever"?

I don't think that was the case.

Graham

[tramper]

I do not recall seeing any statistics for allied forces wounded in action can anyone enlighten me ?

[Tmy]

There seems to be many stats on the #'s of Iraqis killed by Saddam.

Would you believe any stat coming from the whitehouse anyway??

[The idea]

Originally posted by Tmy
There seems to be many stats on the #'s of Iraqis killed by Saddam.

Would you believe any stat coming from the White House anyway?? [emphasis added to one word by the idea and correct written name of the White House--which is correct--replaced what was there before]
Dear Scoffer named Tmy:

Instead of pissing away your life posting pointless messages on internet bulletin boards, why don't you prove that you have some gonads and take a vacation in China sometime in the near future. Please please tell the Chinese authorities that you packed your own luggage and please bring one or more of the following in your luggage: a Chinese translation of 1984 by George Orwell; a copy of the (Roman Catholic) Jerusalem Bible; or a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

On second thought, don't go, because your friends in the Chinese government would eat you alive or sell your organs for bucks.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by The idea

Dear Scoffer named Tmy:

Instead of pissing away your life posting pointless messages on internet bulletin boards, why don't you prove that you have some gonads and take a vacation in China sometime in the near future. Please please tell the Chinese authorities that you packed your own luggage and please bring one or more of the following in your luggage: a Chinese translation of 1984 by George Orwell; a copy of the (Roman Catholic) Jerusalem Bible; or a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

On second thought, don't go, because your friends in the Chinese government would eat you alive or sell your organs for bucks.

geez, and you say I post pointless messages?


I'm glad China is communists. How elese can you keep billions of people under control. Last thing we want is for nuke havin China to fall into chaos.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Tmy
I'm glad China is governed by communists. How else can you keep billions of people under control? Last thing we want is for nuke havin' China to fall into chaos.
I'm listening and I think I understand, but how do you stand on the Strategic Defense Initiative? Are you in support, opposition, or neutral? Do you have any comments on US military research budget management?

[Tmy]

Originally posted by The idea

I'm listening and I think I understand, but how do you stand on the Strategic Defense Initiative? Are you in support, opposition, or neutral? Do you have any comments on US military research budget management?

SDI was alot cooler when they called it Star Wars.

I think its a waste of money. Our enemies would just make satilites to kill our SDI satillites. How easy would that be!

Not only that but the early version of the SDI program envisioned nearly perfect defenses against very large missile attacks, which would require highly-capable space-based intercept systems. Many of the weapons concepts required very large electrical power levels, and space nuclear reactors were a leading candidate to meet these requirements. The important point to remember about space nuclear power is that the time scale for the development is long, 7 - 10 years or perhaps longer for systems in the 100-kW(e) range and more than ten years for higher-powered systems. This time scale is comparable to or longer than the time scale on which requirements may emerge. If begun today, there is the time to carry out a responsible technology program; if delayed, subsequent development efforts may well prove more costly and hurried, with a resulting adverse effect on quality and public acceptability. :p

;) ;)

[Tony]

Saddam gets to kill and oppress millions of Iraqis as a normal function of his government, and most of the antiwar/prosaddam crowds were willing to let him continue.

The coalition kills a few thousand and they are the greatest threat to the world.


People with such a skewed perspective have a bigger priority in demonizing the coalition than actually helping the Iraqis. They are no better than saddam himself.

[Beerina]

> Saddam gets to kill and oppress millions of Iraqis as a normal
> function of his government, and most of the
> antiwar/prosaddam crowds were willing to let him continue.
>
> The coalition kills a few thousand and they are the greatest
> threat to the world.


Stop using logic! Better to let Hitler kill 6 million Jews and rule with an iron murderous fist over Europe than to invade, and kill 10,000 innocent German citizens.

It's astounding how much the left's sense of being is guided by whether people morally approve of them or not.

By the way, does anyone doubt that with complete lifting of sanctions (with Saddam still in power), the normal daily death rate would still exceed what's happening there now?

[Tmy]

I think the point is not that Iraqis are dying, but how those deaths arent being counted just because it would be bad PR.

Its all about the propaganda. We're supposed to be above such nonsense.


By the way. Did we ever get a credible # on the people killed by Saddam. Ive heard such crazy and varied numbers.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy


SDI was alot cooler when they called it Star Wars.

I think its a waste of money. Our enemies would just make satilites to kill our SDI satillites. How easy would that be!

Not only that but the early version of the SDI program envisioned nearly perfect defenses against very large missile attacks, which would require highly-capable space-based intercept systems. Many of the weapons concepts required very large electrical power levels, and space nuclear reactors were a leading candidate to meet these requirements. The important point to remember about space nuclear power is that the time scale for the development is long, 7 - 10 years or perhaps longer for systems in the 100-kW(e) range and more than ten years for higher-powered systems. This time scale is comparable to or longer than the time scale on which requirements may emerge. If begun today, there is the time to carry out a responsible technology program; if delayed, subsequent development efforts may well prove more costly and hurried, with a resulting adverse effect on quality and public acceptability. :p

;) ;)

You're busted! (http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c06sdi_1.htm)

[Tmy]

Drat foiled again!!

HA HA!! What gave me away. THe smiley faces!!!?


I already have my defenses! It was a quote, so therefore its not copywrited material!!! Non compes mentis!

[SRW]

Originally posted by Graham


So you think there were zero other options than "US and its little coalition go to war" or "Continue sanctions forever"?

I don't think that was the case.

Graham


And the other options were? More inspections? Well that would not have helped remove sanctions (which were a joke anyway as they helped Saddam and his cronies get rich). A resolution that had real consequences if Saddam did not co-operate? Oops 1441, but most countries were just kidding about that.

Further containment? I'm sure Syria and Iran and would be fully cooperative. Well I'm baffled what other options were there?

[shuize]

First of all, it is not a "false dichotomy" to compare what was then with what is now.

That there may or may not have been other options is irrelevant to the question of whether Iraqi children are generally better off today. (As with the post above, however, I don't think there were many other real options)

But the point is, if the sanctions were killing 5,000 children per month (which the left assured us was fact), and the sanctions were lifted as a result of the war, then any number under 5,000 is an improvement. Do you disagree?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by demon
Numbers of American and British casualties are well reported, there are no shortages of sources for these figures...if you are looking for an appeal to emotion then look no further than that.

Unless there is some official government site with a fancy little counter for the deaths, then no it is not an appeal to emotion. Last time I checked the casualty reports were burried alongside all the other reports being churned out.

I think they (Iraq Bodycount) are looking to redress the inbalance but I guess we wont agree on that.

What inbalance?


I don`t understand your point here, I`d like to though...please elaborate.

The point is that simply throwing out some random numbers of Iraqis killed is meaningless. Were the deaths accidental? Were the deaths the result of gross negligence? Were the deaths intentional? Those questions are far more important than how many people are killed. Only people who are impressed by large numbers or do not believe that civilians die in war will be swayed by that site.

[zenith-nadir]

Originally posted by Tony
Saddam gets to kill and oppress millions of Iraqis as a normal function of his government, and most of the antiwar/prosaddam crowds were willing to let him continue.The coalition kills a few thousand and they are the greatest threat to the world.People with such a skewed perspective have a bigger priority in demonizing the coalition than actually helping the Iraqis. They are no better than saddam himself. So true. America attacks a ruthless murdering despot and the liberals attack America. One can almost taste the irony.

[Outcast]

Originally posted by The idea

Dear Scoffer named Tmy:

Instead of pissing away your life posting pointless messages on internet bulletin boards, why don't you prove that you have some gonads and take a vacation in China sometime in the near future. Please please tell the Chinese authorities that you packed your own luggage and please bring one or more of the following in your luggage: a Chinese translation of 1984 by George Orwell; a copy of the (Roman Catholic) Jerusalem Bible; or a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

On second thought, don't go, because your friends in the Chinese government would eat you alive or sell your organs for bucks. I'll pass your list along to my son and see what he says. I'll tell him to carry Hillary's books next time he goes. I understand they like her over there.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Graham


So you think there were zero other options than "US and its little coalition go to war" or "Continue sanctions forever"?

I don't think that was the case.

Graham

It was no less a personage than George W Bush himself who wanted 'smart sanctions' prior to 9/11. Says a lot to me when an Irishman knows more about American policy than Americans.

[Richard G]

Some people on this board however objected to their way of counting, because they also count civilian deaths that are not specifically to blame on the US led forces which means that they count more. They argue that such a tally should only include the deaths the US is responsible for, and not the deaths caused by terrorists fighting rebelling against the war the US started.

Counting that way...the U.S. killed 6 million Jews during WW2.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Richard G


Counting that way...the U.S. killed 6 million Jews during WW2.

No, Dick, read what Earthborn wrote again.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by tramper
I do not recall seeing any statistics for allied forces wounded in action can anyone enlighten me ?

Consider yourself enlightened! :)

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by Richard G
Counting that way...the U.S. killed 6 million Jews during WW2.Well... If we assume that the US started World War 2, and the Holocaust was a violent rebellion against the occupation of Germany by the US, and wouldn't have happened if the US hadn't started that war, then I am sure www.germanbodycount.org would have counted those six million Jews among the civilian deaths. However, it would not have said that the US killed them, but that they were killed because of the war the US started. Note the subtle distinction, it is easy to miss it.

IIRC, the US did not start WW2, and the persecution of Jews was not an act of rebellion against the US occupation. I know that all history is subject to interpretation, but I see distinct differences between WW2 and that thing going on in Iraq (that's not officially a 'war' and that's supposed to be over for almost a year now).

[tramper]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Consider yourself enlightened! :)

http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx



I have seen the light thank Q Jon

[Skeptic]

Well... If we assume that the US started World War 2, and the Holocaust was a violent rebellion against the occupation of Germany by the US, and wouldn't have happened if the US hadn't started that war,

This sort of reasoning--"it's X fault Y happened because if X hadn't happened, Y wouldn't have happened"--is extremely tenous and dangerous way to assign moral (or other) blame, especially in dealing with historical events.

For example, there is serious debate in the historical community whether Hitler truly aimed in advance for the holocaust (the traditional view) or that what he planned originally was less systematic destruction which blossomed into full-blown genocide only after 1941 when he found himself in a world war he hadn't prepared for. (See SKEPTIC magazine Vol. 2 No. 4, the "denying the holocaust" issue, for an interesting discussion.)

If the latter view is correct, then the US entering the war WAS a factor in the holocaust, and it might have been that far less jews would have been killed in the death camps than otherwise. Does this make the US morally culpable in their deaths? Of course not. Or, to be utterly absurd about this, every murder victim's mother is to blame for his death: had she not given birth to the victim, they couldn't have been murdered. Does this make sense? Of course not.

The reason these sort of speculations are absurd are twofold. First, especially in the case of historical speculation, it is extremely difficult to tell what really would have happened otherwise. But, more important, there is a huge difference between mere causal relationship and causal relationship that has MORAL CULPABILITY (or praise) attached to it. Giving birth to Hitler had a greater causal effect in creating the holocaust than the killing a single jew in the death camps by a specific German sergeant; but one carries moral culpability since it was an evil act done deliberately, the other does not. This is why such sergeants were put on trial at the end of the war, while Hitler's mother (had she been alive) would not have faced any charges.

Same here. First, that the deaths would not have occured without the US invasion is specualtive: knowing Saddam, it is not at all clear that there aren't less Iraqis dying now than under his rule (which is one reason why invading Iraq is morally different than invading, say, Canada, or any other nation that doesn't mass-murder its own citizens), so it is not clear if there is even a causal blame (instead of praise) here.

Second, even if the latter is true and the US is one of the causes of the deaths (in the sense of them not occuring without the invasion), it is at most a NECESSARY cause, not a sufficient one--which does not in itself imply any blame, any more than the mothers of the dead Iraqis are "really" to blame for their deaths since if the hadn't been born they couldn't have been killed. The Iraqis who attacked US convoys, for instance, are also part of the cause of Iraqi deaths, and bear a responsibility for it. There is a long list of causes that, only together, allowed the deaths to occur; and it isn't clear that the US invasion is the blame-worthy cause.

[Troll]

Originally posted by demon
"Yeah, just like rense.com is a 'respected' source of information."

That`s right, shoot the messenger.
If the liberators and freedom bringers had an inclination to count how many they had killed then we would have another source, wouldn`t we?
As they don`t care about numbers what do you suggest? Or don`t you care about numbers either?

Dude, think for one small moment. A bomb goes off where the military is not, people are hurt and killed and the military is sending people to see what happened. Do you seriously think the Iraqi people just leave their dead and wounded in the street to be counted? We don't count the number we've killed because it is impossible to do so. Not all that are dead are because of the war either, people still have accidents and die of natural causes.

How many are dead? More than what we'd like to see. Or do we now get to hear how no one in the military cares and other baseless comments from you and your ilk?

[renata]

Saw this today, reminded me of discussion about women and children being killed by US troops.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/18/iraq.main/index.html

Emphasis mine below

The Marines were killed Saturday when a patrol reported coming under attack by insurgents with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades near the town of Husaybah, the Marines said.

Reinforcements, backed by helicopter support, also came under fire by insurgents operating from near Husaybah's former Ba'ath Party headquarters, the military said.

The fight continued through the night, the Marines said, pitting their troops against 120 to 150 insurgents. The Marines estimated 25 to 30 insurgents were killed in the attack.

They also reported seeing women and children surrounding mortar positions, but could not tell if they were there voluntarily, and said the insurgents fired at medical helicopters carrying wounded Marines from the battlefield.



So assuming this is a true account, when someone puts women and children around mortar positions and fires at Marines, should they fire back? And if they do fire back, the death of those women and children by American fire, who is responsible for those casualties?

[Graham]

Originally posted by renata
Saw this today, reminded me of discussion about women and children being killed by US troops.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/18/iraq.main/index.html

Emphasis mine below


So assuming this is a true account, when someone puts women and children around mortar positions and fires at Marines, should they fire back? And if they do fire back, the death of those women and children by American fire, who is responsible for those casualties?

The question of whether the Marines should be there in the first place or not is also relevant, IMO.

My position, for what it's worth, is that even if you accept that the "coalition" had good reason to invade, they were not forced to do so - it was a choice.

Perhaps they made that choice based on good motivations (depose a dictator, free the oppressed people of Iraq, etc) and perhaps they didn't - that's irrelevant.

Being that it was a choice, that adds additional responsibility to their part for the ensuing violence and mayhem, again IMO.

That said, anyone who would hide behind civilians in this manner is unworthy even of the oxygen it takes to fill their lungs.

Graham

[RandFan]

Originally posted by shuize
First of all, it is not a "false dichotomy" to compare what was then with what is now. Thank you.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Graham
The question of whether the Marines should be there in the first place or not is also relevant, IMO.

My position, for what it's worth, is that even if you accept that the "coalition" had good reason to invade, they were not forced to do so - it was a choice.

Perhaps they made that choice based on good motivations (depose a dictator, free the oppressed people of Iraq, etc) and perhaps they didn't - that's irrelevant.

Being that it was a choice, that adds additional responsibility to their part for the ensuing violence and mayhem, again IMO.

That said, anyone who would hide behind civilians in this manner is unworthy even of the oxygen it takes to fill their lungs.

Graham Well said.

[renata]

Originally posted by Graham


The question of whether the Marines should be there in the first place or not is also relevant, IMO.

Good point, and one I neglected to address because the point I raised was meant to be a narrow one. I agree with you that any time an action is one not of immediate necessity, it automatically places a greater responsibility on the initiator of that action.

Agree with your post, well said.