Iraqi death toll [Archive]

Tricky

18th May 2003, 12:49 PM

The L.A. Times (http://www.latimes.com/) just had an article claiming that the civilian death toll in Baghdad alone is "at least 1700" with more than 8000 casualties. While some of these casualties were not directly caused by US bombs or bullets, such as exploding Iraqi ammo and friendly fire, it is still a very telling number. And those are just the documented casualties. Islamic burial societied indicate that as many as 1000 more undocumented deaths may have occurred.

These numbers are ironically close to the deaths from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and they are from Baghdad alone. At what point does the US have to stop wringing their hand about how many of their innocent civilians were killed in terrorist attacks?

A link to the complete article (but you have to register with the LA Times).
Baghdad's Death Toll Assessed (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/inside/la-war-iraqidead18may18,1,7760033.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2D headlines)

Cleopatra

18th May 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
These numbers are ironically close to the deaths from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and they are from Baghdad alone. At what point does the US have to stop wringing their hand about how many of their innocent civilians were killed in terrorist attacks?

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

This is not the first time I read this and when I don't get mad, I get shocked.

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.

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.

Captain_Snort

18th May 2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

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

This is not the first time I read this and when I don't get mad, I get shocked.

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.

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.

So its OK for civilians to be killed as the result of an illegal war then? what is the difference between the shock and awe tactics employed by the so called coalition, and the shock and awe caused in terrorist attacks?

Its OK for countries that agree with the 'war' to totally ignore international law? Accusing Iraq of blatent disregard for the geneva convention when the US has the 'detainees'.

Myself I view little difference between the action in Iraq and afghanistan (and who knows where next) and terrorism.

arcticpenguin

18th May 2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Captain_Snort

So its OK for civilians to be killed as the result of an illegal war then? what is the difference between the shock and awe tactics employed by the so called coalition, and the shock and awe caused in terrorist attacks?

Are you truly unable to distinguish between 'collateral' casualties of war and the direct targeting of civilians by terrorists?

Tricky

18th May 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

Are you truly unable to distinguish between 'collateral' casualties of war and the direct targeting of civilians by terrorists?
If the war were one of defense, I could understand them a little better. But there was no need for this war. I don't regard civilian casualties as 'collateral damage' in this war any more than I would have done when Germany invaded Poland. It was unjustified aggression and civilians died because of it.

I also disagree in principle with the way the US fights by dropping bombs knowing full well they will kill innocents. To me, that is as cowardly as terrorism. Let them do the honorable thing and march on Baghdad without 'softening them up' first. Yeah, it means more of our troops will die, but if you truly believe the war is worth it, then you should stand by those principles and fight fairly. Winning with overwhelming firepower and budget doesn't seem terribly brave to me. Problem is, most of the US people care a lot about our soldiers and not a thing about Iraqi civilians, so it is better politics to use our WMDs and too bad about those civilians.

Okay, I admit I am hung up on this "honor" thing.

crackmonkey

18th May 2003, 06:14 PM

Give me a f*cking break... you think that large-scale infantry assaults are somehow more considerate of civilian casualties than precision bombings? Please... :rolleyes:
And when does the US drop bombs knowing 'full well it will kill innocents'? There's always that chance, but we go to great lengths to avoid it. This sets us apart from thugs like the Iraqi fedayeen who want to maximize civilian casualties to garner international reproach for their opponents...

Tony

18th May 2003, 06:17 PM

Originally posted by Captain_Snort

So its OK for civilians to be killed as the result of an illegal war then?

What illegal war?

KelvinG

18th May 2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
The L.A. Times (http://www.latimes.com/) just had an article claiming that the civilian death toll in Baghdad alone is "at least 1700" with more than 8000 casualties. While some of these casualties were not directly caused by US bombs or bullets, such as exploding Iraqi ammo and friendly fire, it is still a very telling number. And those are just the documented casualties. Islamic burial societied indicate that as many as 1000 more undocumented deaths may have occurred.

These numbers are ironically close to the deaths from the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and they are from Baghdad alone. At what point does the US have to stop wringing their hand about how many of their innocent civilians were killed in terrorist attacks?

A link to the complete article (but you have to register with the LA Times).
Baghdad's Death Toll Assessed (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/inside/la-war-iraqidead18may18,1,7760033.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2D headlines)

C'mon Tricky. We all know that Iraqi lives mean nothing compared to lives of Americans.;)

Cain

18th May 2003, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG
We all know that Iraqi lives mean nothing compared to lives of Americans.;)

Nearly all apologists for the illegal war in Iraq believe that to be true. It's an interesting kind of moral relativism...

Are you truly unable to distinguish between 'collateral' casualties of war and the direct targeting of civilians by terrorists?

When a war planner says we're going to bomb area X, but in addition to destroying the target, murder between 200 and 250 people, then the deaths are not accidential.

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" .

I posted on the shifting definition of terrorism in another thread. The American revolutionaries guerilla attacks on neat rows of British Red Coats violated the unwritten rules of war. Osama did not commit the 9/11 atrocities simply for the sake of death alone. They're religious fanatics who want US troops out of Saudi Arabia, the holiest of countries. He's an evil and deranged monster with a reckless disregard for human life; a beast that resorts to destruction and carnage to achieve his aims. As a proportion of the population, though, 3000 out of 300 million does not compare to 1700 out of 26 million. This is to say nothing of ten years of sanctions or the utterly decimated infrastructure leading to a humanitarian crisis.

svero

18th May 2003, 08:12 PM

With regards to casualties of innocent lives I think the number has to be much much higher. Perhaps hundreds of thousands. Who knows... Those stats aren't reported. I just remember estimates of 80,000 troops at this blockade and so on... Who knows how many were killed or deserted or what.

According to the US... All we were told before and during the war was that the army was mainly comprised of draftees who's wives and children were threatened by a small loyal clique of Saddam followers and forced to fight. If that isn't an "innocent" Iraqi persecuted by the evil regime of Saddam I don't know what is.

Besides it's certainly offensive to separate and dismiss soldier deaths even for a volunteer army which is basically what's being done here. If 50 thousand US soldiers died in a chemical attack you'd bet it would be considered the greatest crime on planet earth right now. If 50 thousand Iraqi draftees are killed in US airstrikes... well so be it.. after all they weren't "civilians" right?

Mike B.

18th May 2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

If the war were one of defense, I could understand them a little better. But there was no need for this war. I don't regard civilian casualties as 'collateral damage' in this war any more than I would have done when Germany invaded Poland. It was unjustified aggression and civilians died because of it.

I also disagree in principle with the way the US fights by dropping bombs knowing full well they will kill innocents. To me, that is as cowardly as terrorism. Let them do the honorable thing and march on Baghdad without 'softening them up' first. Yeah, it means more of our troops will die, but if you truly believe the war is worth it, then you should stand by those principles and fight fairly. Winning with overwhelming firepower and budget doesn't seem terribly brave to me. Problem is, most of the US people care a lot about our soldiers and not a thing about Iraqi civilians, so it is better politics to use our WMDs and too bad about those civilians.

Okay, I admit I am hung up on this "honor" thing.

Why stop there Tricky? I think it is cowardly for our troops to use any technology. They should fight with their bare hands. That is much more honorable than shooting someone from far away. For gosh sakes if the war is noble you shouldn't mind having your troops killed.

BTW, what is your definition of fighting fairly? I mean it was completely unfair the way the Soviets used their overwhelming numbers in World War II against the Germans. I mean they should have limited their numbers. Also very unfair for the Germans to use their superior tanks against the Allies. They should have used weaker tanks to be fair. And what is with the US and the UK using their air superiority against the Germans as well. They should have eschewed aircraft. It would have been more honorable and fairer that way...:rolleyes:
The important thing is not victory or minimizing your losses. Generals should fight wars so they seem brave to people like you Tricky.
A little more historical perspective...

Guys really now, has any modern war been fought with greater restraint on civilian casualties? With the amount of firepower available Baghdad and Basra could have been turned into ash. The Marines in Najif could have given an warning for everyone to get out and then leveled the place with heavy artiliary. The troops did take losses because of this.

Where were the good leftists of the world when Putin carpet bombed Grozny and killed untold thousands of civilians a few years ago? No laser guided bombs there...I always get a kick out of Putin crying crocidle tears for the Iraqi civilians.

Sorry these posts are just too silly

aerocontrols

18th May 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Cain

Nearly all apologists for the illegal war in Iraq believe that to be true.

Mass mind reading. Impressive.

corplinx

18th May 2003, 09:06 PM

So, how does that number compare to the number of innocent civillians killed, tortured, or disfigured at the hands of Saddam?

Tricky

18th May 2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by corplinx
So, how does that number compare to the number of innocent civillians killed, tortured, or disfigured at the hands of Saddam?
Hard to say. Do you have real numbers or just "intelligence reports" from the same folks who claimed Iraq had lots of weapons of mass destruction.

Besides, I don't think it is any great honor to be lauded as "not as bad as Saddam".

Cleopatra

18th May 2003, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Captain_Snort

So its OK for civilians to be killed as the result of an illegal war then? .

Let me clarify somethings. You might question the causes of a War. In my opinion, 99% of the Wars that broke -up in History were inexcusable.

Let's don't confuse the legitimacy with the justification.

The country A wants for some reasons( right or wrong) to invade the Country B.

There is a "protocol" , a procedure before and during a War.There are some rules.

This is what distinguishes a War from a terrorist attack.

I would say that a war has some nobility in its horror, where a terrorist attack is the tactic of the cowards.

Earthborn

18th May 2003, 11:17 PM

I would say that a war has some nobility in its horror, where a terrorist attack is the tactic of the cowards.Or the tactic of people who have no chance of succeeding in any other way...

Under normal circumstances the word 'coward' means 'someone who lacks courage/is afraid'. Now who is more courageous: someone who pushes a button to lauch a missile to drop a thousand miles a way, or someone who straps explosives on himself and blows himself up? I'm not talking about the legitimacy of those acts, only the courage needed to do it: who is the biggest coward?

svero

18th May 2003, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Earthborn
Or the tactic of people who have no chance of succeeding in any other way...

Under normal circumstances the word 'coward' means 'someone who lacks courage/is afraid'. Now who is more courageous: someone who pushes a button to lauch a missile to drop a thousand miles a way, or someone who straps explosives on himself and blows himself up? I'm not talking about the legitimacy of those acts, only the courage needed to do it: who is the biggest coward?

I have a hard time trying to imagine the mindframe of a suicide bomber, or a terrorist in general. I mean, it seems on the surface accurate to say that someone who is willing to blow themselves up for a cause is "courageous", but then the word "insane" also seems to fit. What is the mindset? My feeling is that it's one primarly of depression.

Faced with a scenario that seems like a no win scenario in this world - religion is combined with the utter desperation of their lives to motivate these people to look for something better in the afterlife while helping their compatriots who stay behind. If they truly believe they're headed for a better afterlife perhaps it's not so courageous after all. Or are they less religious than we've been led to believe? Are they truly selfless people dying for a cause they believe in?

Cleopatra

18th May 2003, 11:28 PM

So, Earthborn you just dissagree with the mediums of the modern wars after they are declared...You prefer we used knives instead of missiles.

Ok. So, this post of yours contains your opinion regarding the mediums of War. Interesting but as a typical post coming from you, totally irrelevant to what we are discussing...

Earthborn

18th May 2003, 11:53 PM

You prefer we used knives instead of missiles.Only if the enemy agrees to use those too! Even better: pillows! ;)
And whatever the means of war, I prefer the biggest cowards to win. I consider the high tech in warfare to be a progress: at least the politicians who make people fight wars don't put their own people on the line as much as in the past. There has been some progress in how the other side is treated too. Many civilizations of the past didn't even try to hide innocent civilians were killed: they were quite proud of it and didn't try to limit innocent deaths at all.Interesting but as a typical post coming from you, totally irrelevant to what we are discussing...Oh, I dare you to find another post of me that is irrelevant to a discussion! ;)

Baker

18th May 2003, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by KelvinG
We all know that Iraqi lives mean nothing compared to lives of Americans.

Originally posted by Cain

Nearly all apologists for the illegal war in Iraq believe that to be true. It's an interesting kind of moral relativism...

Of course, the fact that it happens in every war doesn’t count does it?
Now there or illegal wars and legal wars which of course depends on who is for or against it.

When a war planner says we're going to bomb area X, but in addition to destroying the target, murder between 200 and 250 people, then the deaths are not accidential.

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.

As a proportion of the population, though, 3000 out of 300 million does not compare to 1700 out of 26 million.

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

This is to say nothing of ten years of sanctions or the utterly decimated infrastructure leading to a humanitarian crisis.

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.

Cain

19th May 2003, 01:04 AM

Re: moral relativism:
Originally posted by Baker
[i]
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.

[B]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

19th May 2003, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by Cain

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

19th May 2003, 06:10 AM

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

19th May 2003, 06:24 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

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.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
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

19th May 2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Gregor
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

19th May 2003, 07:13 AM

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

19th May 2003, 10:40 AM

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... :p ) 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...:cool:

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

Tricky

19th May 2003, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by 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 ...
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).

Originally posted by Cleopatra
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.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
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... :p ) 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.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
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.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
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.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
PS. I feed the Royal crocodiles with Australian meat... ;)

Wallaby damned!:eek:
Originally posted by Cleopatra
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...:cool:
I thought it was our shared interest in Ambrose Bierce.:(

Innocent heart? Tell that to Marc Antony!
http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/lachen/laughing-smiley-004.gif

Tony

19th May 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Tricky

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

19th May 2003, 03:09 PM

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

PygmyPlaidGiraffe

19th May 2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
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

19th May 2003, 11:39 PM

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.

Originally posted by Tricky

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...
:cool:

peptoabysmal

20th May 2003, 01:38 AM

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

20th May 2003, 02:01 AM

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

Earthborn

20th May 2003, 02:27 AM

Actually according to this website (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm) 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 (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press.htm) 200 died because of cluster bombing alone...

Kevin_Lowe

20th May 2003, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
[B]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

20th May 2003, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by Baker

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.

:rolleyes:

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

20th May 2003, 05:42 AM

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

20th May 2003, 06:20 AM

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 deadThen just call it 'iraqiciviliancollateraldamage.com'. Same thing, only with a euphemism.I haven't the time to meticulously research their sourcesJust 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

20th May 2003, 06:28 AM

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.

Earthborn

20th May 2003, 06:43 AM

If you don't understand the concept of sovereignty, we can't talk much more.I'm not sure I understand your concept of souvereignty. Surely you can explain it.

Isn't it true that by forming the UN, souvereign states have given up some of their souvereignty by forming common agreed standards?

Gregor

20th May 2003, 06:49 AM

not really

First, there is no common treaty on military action. Complete sovereign reigns.

Second, nations can withdraw from any treaty, any time. That's what sovereignty means. That's different that individuals chosing to ignore a national law - something they cannot do.

Frostbite

20th May 2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Tony

What illegal war?

Invading a lesser country without the approval of the UN.

Earthborn

20th May 2003, 08:12 AM

Second, nations can withdraw from any treaty, any time. That's what sovereignty means. That's different that individuals chosing to ignore a national law - something they cannot do.Okay. I get it. Do you believe that is a good thing? Isn't a treaty meant to be a contract: by signing it you commit yourself to something. Don't you think that breaking such a contract when it suits you is ultimately dishonest?

Cain

21st May 2003, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Gregor
[B]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."

Even the United States recognizes the existence of International Law (though we don't actually have to obey it. There are different rules for a superpower). So to take one example, you would not consider our actions in Nicaruaga "illegal", right? The International Court of Justice might hand down a 15-1 ruling, but since it has no effective enforcement power (not against a superpower), the US's actions cannot be construed as illegal.... ?

This goes back to moral relativism and the failure to adhere to an elementary moral principle: if it's wrong for you, then it's wrong for me. By virtue of our power, your silly argument goes, we're "above the law" (indeed, what law?). Of course *we* can violate criteria ii) and iv) with impunity, but this does not mean a framework for international law doesn't exist.

If the United States continues to invoke international law (Saddam has violated U.N. resolutions), then the principle of reciprocation applies (refer again to Nicaragua vs. United States (1984)). If the U.S. came out and explicitly said, "look, all this international law stuff is bullsh*t, and we're not going along with it," then of course we would not be violating any laws.

We *claim* allegiance to international law, but violate it anyway. Our actions in Iraq are illegal (indisputably so)... and there's nothing anyone can do about it.