Iraqi dead?

[James]

Yeah, harsh i agree. But, thats life.

Originally posted by IowaStatePhiPsi
Ouch.

[swissmiss04]

Originally posted by James
That depends on the final death count you know? If we kill 5 thousand to save 2 thousand well . . . .

I find the idea of trying to use a cloak or moral superiority to be objectionable.

Bottom line: We invaded Iraq because we could. They lost. So they will suffer.

If they wanted a better shot at life they should have been born somewhere else.

We didn't go to Iraq to fight the Iraqi people. We went to Iraq to topple Saddam and his regime. So civilian deaths are significant, though I do agree that it's not our job to conduct body counts. That's best outsourced to someone else while we do what needs to be done in other realms.

[_Opi_]

Civilian death count is very important. If America went to liberate these Iraqis and allegedly killed 10,000, then they need to re-evaluate their troops. What we should be asking ourselves are why are these figures are so damn high?

James,

They should have been somewhere else? Say what! I don't think these people asked for Saddam or America when they died (outta collateral damage).

[Rudey]

Originally posted by _Opi_
Civilian death count is very important. If America went to liberate these Iraqis and allegedly killed 10,000, then they need to re-evaluate their troops. What we should be asking ourselves are why are these figures are so damn high?

James,

They should have been somewhere else? Say what! I don't think these people asked for Saddam or America when they died (outta collateral damage).

You know the saying about making an omelette?

And you have no idea how many they killed. Again nowhere is 10,000 (a highly guessed number) even going to justify that we shouldn't have gone to war. Several million...then yeah.

-Rudey

[_Opi_]

Rudey,

10,000 IS a high figure. That's 10,000 innocent children, women, men, elderly and the disabled. To me, even 1 life is a high-number, but no war is perfect right. But whatever.

And about the 10,000....it's hypothetical and I'm only going by what the article was estimating. But you are right, I don't know the real figures.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by _Opi_
Rudey,

10,000 IS a high figure. That's 10,000 innocent children, women, men, elderly and the disabled. To me, even 1 life is a high-number, but no war is perfect right. But whatever.

And about the 10,000....it's hypothetical and I'm only going by what the article was estimating. But you are right, I don't know the real figures.

1) It's not a number...it's a guess.

2) It's not just innocent people.

3) It's a war...people die in any war. It could have been a lot worse had we not put our soldier's lives in danger and made our sacrifices.

4) I don't see you crying over American soldiers.

-Rudey

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by _Opi_
Rudey,

10,000 IS a high figure. That's 10,000 innocent children, women, men, elderly and the disabled. To me, even 1 life is a high-number, but no war is perfect right. But whatever.

And about the 10,000....it's hypothetical and I'm only going by what the article was estimating. But you are right, I don't know the real figures.

By historical standards, 10,000 is a low number for a conflict of this scale.

I posted this before, and I'll post it again. Its intellectually dishonest to criticize the US for civilans who were killed without also praising the US for the civilians who were spared from the Baathists. Its two sides of the same coin.

[_Opi_]

Originally posted by Rudey
1) It's not a number...it's a guess.

Hence why I said the word hypothetically

2) It's not just innocent people. [

The article was discussing civilians. I don't think they were talking about those overtly resisting the forces.

3) It's a war...people die in any war. It could have been a lot worse had we not put our soldier's lives in danger and made our sacrifices.

sure, that's the bad side of war. It's unncessary, and people die.

4) I don't see you crying over American soldiers.

Because they are SOLDIERS, not civilians. Its their job to fight the war and they went to Iraq with the intention of fighting a war. Now, while I am against the war, I am not cold-hearted enough to think of them as just soldiers. I am sure they were fine young men/women with families and loved ones. But then again, its the bad side of war, and soldiers die.

[Rudey]

It's a hypothetical. You don't know who was good or bad. In fact you don't know how they measured regardless, do you? I see soldiers die. And you see, civilians end up getting hurt as well. It's their job in life to deal with the good and the bad...and the random.

-Rudey

Originally posted by _Opi_
Hence why I said the word hypothetically



The article was discussing civilians. I don't think they were talking about those overtly resisting the forces.


sure, that's the bad side of war. It's unncessary, and people die.




Because they are SOLDIERS, not civilians. Its their job to fight the war and they went to Iraq with the intention of fighting a war. Now, while I am against the war, I am not cold-hearted enough to think of them as just soldiers. I am sure they were fine young men/women with families and loved ones. But then again, its the bad side of war, and soldiers die.

[Kevin]

I think the discussion is fairly pointless if someone actually believes 10,000 civilians died.

Remember the news when a US bomb killed around 30 civilians and what a lot of propoganda that was? If there were 10000 civilians killed, where are the bodies -- were they civilians or soldiers? 10,000 enemy soldiers dead wouldn't surprise me at all -- it's war and we are trying to kill the other guys. I actually heard a lot higher numbers being thrown around during the war (around 30,000 was one that stands out in my mind).

I want to know:

#1: Who is funding this group that alleges this number of people were killed.

#2: I want to know their methodology in determining how many people were killed.

#3: I want to know how in the hell we are even discussing something that "estimates" between "5000 and 7000" died in the conflict. Well, 2000 is a pretty huge margin of error.

I don't doubt that civilians did die. But this is in my opinion statistical garbage being reported only because it is colorful and generates contraversy.

[_Opi_]

Originally posted by ktsnake

I want to know:

#1: Who is funding this group that alleges this number of people were killed.

#2: I want to know their methodology in determining how many people were killed.

#3: I want to know how in the hell we are even discussing something that "estimates" between "5000 and 7000" died in the conflict. Well, 2000 is a pretty huge margin of error.

I don't doubt that civilians did die. But this is in my opinion statistical garbage being reported only because it is colorful and generates contraversy.

Well sure, these doctors can falsify their reports to make America look bad. But at the same time, if it is 10,000 + there has to be a way to take accountability for that (ethically speaking). I mean couple of thousands of casualities, ok.....but anything as high as what they are "estimating" should be raising eye-brows. I think it at least needs to be addressed, instead of being dismissed.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by _Opi_
Well sure, these doctors can falsify their reports to make America look bad. But at the same time, if it is 10,000 + there has to be a way to take accountability for that (ethically speaking). I mean couple of thousands of casualities, ok.....but anything as high as what they are "estimating" should be raising eye-brows. I think it at least needs to be addressed, instead of being dismissed.

Yes it was addressed by saying it was inaccurate.

-Rudey
--Don't talk to us men...you will be stoned!

[_Opi_]

I mean addressed outside of GC, dumbass.


And I thought you said your country doesn't stone?


Ok, talk about CHILDISH..!

[Rudey]

Originally posted by _Opi_
I mean addressed outside of GC, dumbass.


And I thought you said your country doesn't stone?


Ok, talk about CHILDISH..!

OH MY GOSH...

Every little website out there does not need to be addressed. Every little guess is still a little guess. Every politically motivated guess is still a guess. The fact that we're dying instead of just flying around the country dropping bombs is us addressing this issue and trying to minimize deaths to civilians while protecting our own.

-Rudey
--FREAKING IDIOT!

[_Opi_]

I think we should care about civilian deaths. Whether you agree or not is your opinion. But for someone who boasts about their educational background, you sure now how to debate.

Relax rudey, this is just a discussion, ok? How about you taking deep breaths and counting to 10.