Interesting and fresh POV - Iraq's innocent civilian loss

[MysteryMeat]

http://www.iraqbodycount.net has been around for a little while, keeping record of the verified (by at least 3 reliable sources) -civilian- deaths in Iraq since Bush's war began. An article on the site has caught my eye, and I wanted to put it out there. The biggest thing that caught my attention was the table and this quote:

For each civilian killed by "terrorists" on and since 9-11, the USA and its allies have brought about almost four non-combatant, civilian deaths in return.

> Link to Article Here <


...it's a good read, I recommend it highly. I'd imagine (hope) even the proponents of the war here can still agree that the Iraqi civilian lives lost are tragic. This isn't just a vengeful, greedy war, it's a pretty sloppy one, too.

[mc E]

all war is sloppy in that regard. i cant even imagine being an iraqi child, all your life knowing nothing but fear, danger, hunger, poverty, wanting. Too too sad.

As much as I hate to see "collateral damage", sometimes it cannot be avoided. Especailly when Iraqi insurgents are using those civillians as sheilds. What exactly did they (civillians) think would happen by staying in a city full of "targets", not to mention ones who are SHOOTING at U.S. troops? I know that really sounds harsh but what else is there to do? Let the enemy continue shooting at you without some sort of retaliation?

That's ridiculous! War is war! Since when has there ever been a war of such magnitude where there wasn't a significant number of civilian casualties? Never. This is why civillians are given the option to find a safe haven as refugees.

I don't support the war and I think its truly sad that so many lives are lost due to such ignorance, but I believe the Iraqis (civillians and combatants) played a big part in how large that number has grown.

Then again I'm not there so I can only make my own opinion of what's going on. And the fact that someone has built this website so biased without knowing and addressing the whole story of all the complications and factors leading to the result of these casualties (IMO) is just plain absurd.

[Krash]

Originally posted by SoupMagnet
I believe the Iraqis (civillians and combatants) played a big part in how large that number has grown.

You what? So, if the United States was invaded, you'd run, yeah?

You'd abandon your home at the first sight of what is SUPPOSED TO BE a "liberating" force?

Really?

Liberating force or non liberating force if my hometown were under attack regardless who had the larger military force, you had better believe MY ass would be gone.

Like I said, war is war and nothing can protect anyone from "collateral damage". And whether the invasion was just or not you sure as hell wouldn't see me OR my family sticking around to see the final outcome.

And if I remember correctly at the begining of this war the world media and top political officials said very clearly that there would be a massive number of civillian and military casualties on both sides. So who in their right mind would think they would be safe by staying home? Especially KNOWING that there were military forces in their area.

[Krash]

Originally posted by SoupMagnet
And if I remember correctly at the begining of this war the world media and top political officials said very clearly that there would be a massive number of civillian and military casualties on both sides.

No they didn't, they said it would be a "cake walk".

Your first note, that you'd abandon your home town in the face of an attack? Well, whatever you may do - it isn't what some people of Iraq would do, nor is it what most of the people that I know would do.

We invaded their HOME, for you to say they should of just "left", as practical as it may seem, is denying fundamental nationalist pyschology.

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by SoupMagnet
As much as I hate to see "collateral damage", sometimes it cannot be avoided. Especailly when Iraqi insurgents are using those civillians as sheilds. What exactly did they (civillians) think would happen by staying in a city full of "targets", not to mention ones who are SHOOTING at U.S. troops? I know that really sounds harsh but what else is there to do? Let the enemy continue shooting at you without some sort of retaliation?

That's ridiculous! War is war! Since when has there ever been a war of such magnitude where there wasn't a significant number of civilian casualties? Never. This is why civillians are given the option to find a safe haven as refugees.

I don't support the war and I think its truly sad that so many lives are lost due to such ignorance, but I believe the Iraqis (civillians and combatants) played a big part in how large that number has grown.

Then again I'm not there so I can only make my own opinion of what's going on. And the fact that someone has built this website so biased without knowing and addressing the whole story of all the complications and factors leading to the result of these casualties (IMO) is just plain absurd.

There is so much ignorance in this statement, I really don't know where to begin. Did you really look at that site? Actually see the table of people that were killed, where, cause, etc. etc., and how they define civilians as different from military (i.e. not shooting at people). Also, did you note the fact that they don't report a 'civilian death' until at least THREE reliable sources have confirmed it, and they name their sources, in many cases giving links? I guess because it's showing what's going on over on the other side, it must be skewed and wrongly biased, thus discredited, right? I'd like to see you base your opinions on as many resources as these people use to back up what they keep record of.

As for 'staying in a city full of targets', many of the cities that were invaded were CLOSED OFF, and no one got in or out. The troops blocked off the roads, and kept watch at escape points. Even if they had wanted to leave, they wouldn't have been able to; had they tried, they'd have most likely been shot by the Iraqi military.

As for the Iraqis knowing what sort of danger they were in as the troops invaded, didn't you ever see that joke of a Information Minister? He kept telling the people that they weren't being invaded, that the Iraqi troops were winning, yadda, yadda, yadda.

FYI, I don't think -any- civilian casualty is justified, war or not. We certainly thought our civilian casualties mattered when 9/11 happened.

Originally posted by Krash
No they didn't, they said it would be a "cake walk".

HUH?!?!? I don't know what you newscast you were watching. Hell, even after we just rolled in and took Baghdad without a fight the President himself said that it is FAR from over. I don't remember hearing ANYTHING about this campaign being a "cakewalk". Maybe you are thinking about public opinion and not actual newscasts.

But hey, I could be wrong, maybe they did. If someone else out there heard that it would be easy, please let me know.

And you're right, that is what I would do and I can't speak for everyone. And I'm not saying that they deserved to die because they didn't leave. I'm saying that a person, knowing the possible consequences staying and knowing the history of prior wars, should know that staying in an area with combattants who's sole purpose for being there is to set up a defensive posture and launch attacks on the opposition, is a bad idea.

And like I said, I don't support the war by any means whatsoever. I am simply pointing out that the website's biased approach on the war by making it look like like the high number civillian casualties is nothing more than vengeance on our part...

For each civilian killed by "terrorists" on and since 9-11, the USA and its allies have brought about almost four non-combatant, civilian deaths in return.

...is ridiculous.

I don't remember reading anywhere on the site about Iraqi insurgents using those civillians as "human sheilds" by launching ATTACKS in an urban area.

[Krash]

Originally posted by SoupMagnet
HUH?!?!? I don't know what you newscast you were watching. Hell, even after we just rolled in and took Baghdad without a fight the President himself said that it is FAR from over. I don't remember hearing ANYTHING about this campaign being a "cakewalk". Maybe you are thinking about public opinion and not actual newscasts.

Rumfeld said that Iraq would be a cakewalk..

At the time I objected to the war, I laughed hard at that analogy- What administration governs the planet YOU are on?

[Krash]

Originally posted by SoupMagnet
I don't remember reading anywhere on the site about Iraqi insurgents using those civillians as "human sheilds" by launching ATTACKS in an urban area.

Using 155mm ARTILLERY to counter a SINGLE mortar in a CIVILLIAN area is OVER KILL.

You are NOT fighting a "normal" war in Iraq, it is COIN - and we are going to LOSE because we don't realise that.

It's absolutely fucking daft.

Ok I was not aware of Rumsfeld's statement so I stand corrected in that regard.

But your statement "What administration governs the planet YOU live on?" (assuming it was directed towards me) is a little out of line. I have said several times in this post that most of what I said was MY OWN OPINION based on my own observations.

For you to attack ME directly instead of keeping it exclusive to my opinions is just sad.

[Krash]

Originally posted by SoupMagnet
Ok I was not aware of Rumsfeld's statement so I stand corrected in that regard.

But your statement "What administration governs the planet YOU live on?" (assuming it was directed towards me) is a little out of line. I have said several times in this post that most of what I said was MY OWN OPINION based on my own observations.

For you to attack ME directly instead of keeping it exclusive to my opinions is just sad.

Though it may of been a little harsh, the point of the question was how can you possibly miss the quote, probably the most repeated sound bite of the administration, along with "Imminent threat" since he made the statement? I wasn't attacking you - just as I didn't think you were attacking me when you asked which newscast I was watching to say that the US government had indeed said that it would be a "cake walk".

Thats understandable Krash, and thank you for correcting me.

And I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here MysteryMeat, but I did look at the website. And I looked at the tables as well. And while the tables tell you what the "target" was, it does not tell you the extenuating circumstances which caused it to BE a "target". Hence my OPINION that the website is biased, only trying to point out the fact that the U.S. and allies are the sole purpose for the casualties.

And yes some of it is sloppy but what war isn't?

[MysteryMeat]

Originally posted by SoupMagnet
Thats understandable Krash, and thank you for correcting me.

And I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here MysteryMeat, but I did look at the website. And I looked at the tables as well. And while the tables tell you what the "target" was, it does not tell you the extenuating circumstances which caused it to BE a "target". Hence my OPINION that the website is biased, only trying to point out the fact that the U.S. and allies are the sole purpose for the casualties.

And yes some of it is sloppy but what war isn't?

Well, the current administration repeatedly tried to assure us that this one wouldn't be (a 'sloppy war'). And just FYI (not being sarcastic), that site was set up for awareness, so that people understood that there are horrible by-products of this war that we've been mostly sugar-coated spoon-fed until more recently.