Deadly Milestones

[theknife]

US death toll in Iraq passes 1000...no surprise there, everyone saw it coming.
meanwhile, the Iraqi death toll is estimated at somewhere between 10,000 and 30,000....

Iraqi dead include not only insurgents, police and soldiers but also civilian men, women and children caught in crossfire, blown apart by explosives or shot by mistake both by fellow Iraqis or by American soldiers and their multinational allies. And they include the victims of crime that has surged in the instability that followed the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime.

i'm not sure which is the bigger tragedy - the US soldiers who became canon fodder in this mess or the thousands of dead Iraqis who never asked to be 'liberated".

U.S. officials said they didn't have the resources to track civilian deaths during the U.S.-led occupation, which ended officially June 28. Iraq's central authorities also haven't reported comprehensive figures on civilian deaths - while record-keeping was meticulous under Saddam, the interim government didn't even begin trying to keep track until five months ago.

don't ask, don't tell, eh? difficult to sort out the total Iraqi body count, let alone how many were participants and how many were innocent bystanders.

''It is difficult to establish the right number of casualties,'' said a spokeswoman for Amnesty International, Nicole Choueiry. Her London-based human rights organization estimates more than 10,000 Iraqi civilians died in the first year of the conflict alone.

However, Amnesty's figure was based in part on media reports that often simply repeated claims of American and Iraqi officials. Iraq is as large as California and much of the country is too dangerous for independent teams to investigate more than a handful of death claims.

Iraq Body Count, a private group that bases its figures in part on reports by 40 media outlets, puts the number of civilian deaths since the conflict began at between 11,793 and 13,802.

Hazem al-Radini at the Human Rights Organization in Iraq said his group estimates the toll at more than 30,000 civilian deaths. He said the group didn't have any statistics and based the figure on reports by Iraqi news media.

but by all counts, it would be safe to assume that there were at least 10,000 civilian non-combatant deaths since we invaded Iraq....so one has to wonder this: where are the pro-lifers on this subject? i can google pro-life groups and come up with thousands of pro-life websites...all of whom are bitching and moaning about abortion in China, stem cell research in the US, euthanasia in Belgium, etc. but apparently, the ongoing civilian death toll in Iraq isn't a "pro-life" isue.

make no mistake, these people do care about kids - right up until the minute they're born.

who would Jesus bomb?

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/252/...k_Omar_:.shtml

[JackSpratts]

it's a f*cking outrage for both countries.

- js.

[albed]

Originally Posted by theknife

but by all counts, it would be safe to assume that there were at least 10,000 civilian non-combatant deaths since we invaded Iraq....so one has to wonder this: where are the pro-lifers on this subject? i can google pro-life groups and come up with thousands of pro-life websites...all of whom are bitching and moaning about abortion in China, stem cell research in the US, euthanasia in Belgium, etc. but apparently, the ongoing civilian death toll in Iraq isn't a "pro-life" isue.

Come on knife. Don't you already have enough people whining with you that you don't need to whine about people who aren't whining?

It's a war...people die...it's all thousands of miles away...you're safe...relax.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by albed

Come on knife. Don't you already have enough people whining with you that you don't need to whine about people who aren't whining?

lol....that's actually pretty funny

actually, what happens is i spend a lot of time in my car...and all i get on the the radio, all day, is non-stop conservative rightie whining. by the end of the day, i need to vent so i come here.

Originally Posted by toy boy

isn't that the same as when i search for columbine i get several threads within this forum but not one about the school in russia?

fair point - if that massacre in Russia had occurred here, it would be the only thing on the front pages for the next month....and if it happened in some Third World country, it wouldn't even get the headlines it has now.

165 kids dead....it only deepens my conviction that, if there is a God, He really doesn't give a shit what we do to each other.

[legion]

Originally Posted by theknife

165 kids dead....it only deepens my conviction that, if there is a God, He really doesn't give a shit what we do to each other.

I couldn't agree more

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by theknife

165 kids dead....it only deepens my conviction that, if there is a God, He really doesn't give a shit what we do to each other.

And I couldn't disagree more, but as long as we're second guessing God's actions (or inaction) I have some thoughts. If he cared to correct us he'd post here himself, but he's probably tired of repeating himself for the ten billionth time when his word is already there for anybody to read. I would argue that he gave us advice (in the form of commandments that we, none the less, have the choice to obey) in his compassion for us, and he doesn't interfere because we have to learn for ourselves. Some might ask him to save us all from war, poverty, etc., but he's already told us how to do those things for ourselves. Those who wonder why he allows tragedies to happen are really only taking their free will for granted, something which I consider a gift that carries a lot of responsibility.

Okay I'm ending my religious rant. Now lets get back to politics as usual.

[albed]

Well why doesn't he save us from natural disasters then? Can't blame mankind for those hurricanes and earthquakes.

[albed]

Originally Posted by theknife

lol....that's actually pretty funny

actually, what happens is i spend a lot of time in my car...and all i get on the the radio, all day, is non-stop conservative rightie whining. by the end of the day, i need to vent so i come here.

Heck with their anti-abortion law getting overturned by federal courts I imagine they're squealing like stuck pigs now. Should be pleasant listening.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by albed

It's a war...people die...it's all thousands of miles away...you're safe...relax.

[START SARCASM]So nice to hear that you are so comfy with that concept. Guess you don't care for those US army and allies that dies every day over there. Ever thought of the future generations, on how they will have to pay up the bill of this insane & unjustified war?

Even tho it's ''all thousand of miles away'' , it's still happening[/END SARCASM]

[albed]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

[START SARCASM]So nice to hear that you are so comfy with that concept. Guess you don't care for those US army and allies that dies every day over there. Ever thought of the future generations, on how they will have to pay up the bill of this insane & unjustified war?

Even tho it's ''all thousand of miles away'' , it's still happening[/END SARCASM]

There's nothing I can do and it has no immediate effect on me so there's no sense in getting upset.

What are you getting all worked up over? It has even less effect on you.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by albed

What are you getting all worked up over? It has even less effect on you.

How so, how can you say it has less effect on me, how can you dare make such a statement?!? Each loss of life affects me FYI. You might not notice but some of us have a reality dose of what is truly happening. The Iraq war is wrong.

[albed]

I can say it has less effect on you because Canadians aren't doing the dying and future Canadians won't have to pay the bill.

[legion]

Originally Posted by theknife

but by all counts, it would be safe to assume that there were at least 10,000 civilian non-combatant deaths since we invaded Iraq....so one has to wonder this: where are the pro-lifers on this subject? i can google pro-life groups and come up with thousands of pro-life websites...all of whom are bitching and moaning about abortion in China, stem cell research in the US, euthanasia in Belgium, etc. but apparently, the ongoing civilian death toll in Iraq isn't a "pro-life" isue.

make no mistake, these people do care about kids - right up until the minute they're born.

who would Jesus bomb?

isn't that the same as when i search for columbine i get several threads within this forum but not one about the school in russia?

[Sinner]

by James Dunnigan
September 8, 2004

In Iraq, American combat losses continue at a historically low level. Since March, 2003, American troops have suffered 7,900 casualties (including 976 dead.) This is an unprecedented killed to wounded ratio of 1:7. In past wars, the ration had been 1:4 or 1:5. American combat deaths over the Summer were 42 in June, 54 in July and 66 in August. There are the equivalent of three American combat divisions in Iraq, each running several hundred patrols and other combat operations each day. Never have combat divisions, operating in hostile territory, kept their casualties this low. The news media, concentrating on any losses as the story have generally missed the historical significance of the low casualties. The American armed forces have developed new equipment, weapons and tactics that have transformed combat operations in an unprecedented way. This is recognized within the military, but is generally ignored, or misunderstood, by the general media.

The health ministry announced that 2,956 people were killed and 11,669 injured because of anti-government violence and terrorism in the last four months. That's a death rate from the violence of 48 per year per 100,000 population. This is much higher than the death rate from crime in the United States, of 5.6 per 100,000. But lower than the rate of 58 in crime ridden South Africa. However, the rate in Iraq has more than tripled, from 15 per 100,000, earlier in the year. However, the fighting has been concentrated in a few areas, as have the casualties. Najaf, where the al Sadr gunmen fought police and American troops, and in Sunni Arab areas to the north where anti-government gunmen sought to retake control of the country. Najaf accounted for 18 percent of the dead. Baghdad accounted for 28 percent of the dead. Baghdad is the target of many terrorist attacks, as well as a large Shia population, and the source of most of the al Sadr gunmen. Baghdad was also the home of many of Sadam Hussein's most dedicated followers. Only ten percent of the casualties are women and children (who make up some two thirds of the population), indicating that the losses are largely from anti-government forces fighting, without much success, coalition troops.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Sinner

by James Dunnigan
September 8, 2004

In Iraq, American combat losses continue at a historically low level. Since March, 2003, American troops have suffered 7,900 casualties (including 976 dead.) This is an unprecedented killed to wounded ratio of 1:7. In past wars, the ration had been 1:4 or 1:5. American combat deaths over the Summer were 42 in June, 54 in July and 66 in August. There are the equivalent of three American combat divisions in Iraq, each running several hundred patrols and other combat operations each day. Never have combat divisions, operating in hostile territory, kept their casualties this low. The news media, concentrating on any losses as the story have generally missed the historical significance of the low casualties. The American armed forces have developed new equipment, weapons and tactics that have transformed combat operations in an unprecedented way. This is recognized within the military, but is generally ignored, or misunderstood, by the general media.

Clinton's military did a hell of a job, eh?

too bad these these precious assets got wasted in Iraq, when they could have been used to finish the job in Afghanistan...

[albed]

Originally Posted by theknife

Clinton's military did a hell of a job, eh?

too bad these these precious assets got wasted in Iraq, when they could have been used to finish the job in Afghanistan...

Kill people in one place or kill them in another; what's the difference to you? You've said often enough you don't think it's worth a single soldiers life.





Heheh. The heshe wasn't bothering me it was just opening a thread to find it was the only thing all the time.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by theknife

Clinton's military did a hell of a job, eh?

too bad these these precious assets got wasted in Iraq, when they could have been used to finish the job in Afghanistan...

Clinton's Military...bah!!!!



These assets did not get wasted in Iraq because Iran or Syria will be next if they don't smarten up. ---- "Iran has continued to support terrorism in Iraq, and elsewhere. Iran has long maintained terrorist training and support camps, but has kept quiet about it. But the camps are not invisible from above, and terrorists are constantly getting caught with evidence linking them to Iran. Both Iran and Syria fear retaliation from the United States and Israel, initially in the form of air raids on their terrorist camps. The terrorists can then be moved to urban areas, although it is feared that American intelligence agencies will discover where the terrorist safe houses are and continue hitting them with smart bombs. This might escalate to an invasion.

So why do Syria and Iran continue with the terrorist support? Partly it is so the secular (in Syria) and religious (in Iran) dictators can stay in power. By supporting terrorism, you have a bunch of deadly and ruthless people available to you to deal with any internal dissent. This is how the Taliban used al Qaeda to help control the Afghan population. Another bonus is that the "threat" of attack from the United States or Israel can be used as nationalist propaganda to divert popular attention from the dislike for the local dictatorship. This is one of the first things you figure out once you become a dictator. Get yourself a foreign enemy to occupy your peoples' attention, otherwise they will come after you.

Syria and Iran are playing a very dangerous game. Being known as the only countries on the planet that support terrorism could turn into a very deadly liability."----

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Sinner

Clinton's Military...bah!!!!

he he...the neocons hate that fact, but it's true. those whizbang hi-tech troops that routed Afghanistan were, in fact, bred, raised, and funded in the Clinton administration. irrelevant to the topic, but a fun fact, nonetheless

Originally Posted by Sinner

These assets did not get wasted in Iraq because Iran or Syria will be next if they don't smarten up. ---- "Iran has continued to support terrorism in Iraq, and elsewhere. Iran has long maintained terrorist training and support camps, but has kept quiet about it. But the camps are not invisible from above, and terrorists are constantly getting caught with evidence linking them to Iran. Both Iran and Syria fear retaliation from the United States and Israel, initially in the form of air raids on their terrorist camps. The terrorists can then be moved to urban areas, although it is feared that American intelligence agencies will discover where the terrorist safe houses are and continue hitting them with smart bombs. This might escalate to an invasion.

So why do Syria and Iran continue with the terrorist support? Partly it is so the secular (in Syria) and religious (in Iran) dictators can stay in power. By supporting terrorism, you have a bunch of deadly and ruthless people available to you to deal with any internal dissent. This is how the Taliban used al Qaeda to help control the Afghan population. Another bonus is that the "threat" of attack from the United States or Israel can be used as nationalist propaganda to divert popular attention from the dislike for the local dictatorship. This is one of the first things you figure out once you become a dictator. Get yourself a foreign enemy to occupy your peoples' attention, otherwise they will come after you.

Syria and Iran are playing a very dangerous game. Being known as the only countries on the planet that support terrorism could turn into a very deadly liability."----

are we talking about the same Iraq war? coz there is nothing that is happening in Iraq that oughta make Syria and Iran worry, and there is nothing being accomplished there that indicates that invading Iraq was a smart thing to do.

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by theknife

are we talking about the same Iraq war? coz there is nothing that is happening in Iraq that oughta make Syria and Iran worry,

I bet Saddam and his sons would disagree with you....well if his rapist, muderous sons were alive that is...........

Originally Posted by theknife

and there is nothing being accomplished there that indicates that invading Iraq was a smart thing to do.

Nothing? are you sure about that? Is that what you really honestly believe?

[albed]

Originally Posted by theknife

he he...the neocons hate that fact, but it's true. those whizbang hi-tech troops that routed Afghanistan were, in fact, bred, raised, and funded in the Clinton administration. irrelevant to the topic, but a fun fact, nonetheless

The U.S. is using 8 year olds as soldiers?

One of us is out of touch with reality.

Must be that "Human Growth Hormone" stuff.

I really need to keep up with this fast changing technology.