4,000 Insurgents Killed Since War Began in Iraq

[bama4256]

At least we've killed more of them than they have of us. I wonder how many civilians we have killed by accident?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060928/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_audiotape

[buckeyefan78]

I wonder how many civilians we have killed by accident?

Isn't it illegal to ask those kinda questions?

[bama4256]

Oh well i guess I am in trouble.

[IntheNet]

At least we've killed more of them than they have of us.

I gather that is the point!!!

[The Pirate Bob]

At least we've killed more of them than they have of us. I wonder how many civilians we have killed by accident?



Some estimates range between 43,000-48,000 civilians killed directly by the military.

I know some Americans don't value other people's lives as much as they do ours, but even ignoring those Iraqi civilian numbers, just the fact that we are sending our best, brightest, and devoted young leaders like Emily here to die in some other country's 1400 yr old struggle should make any conscious driven American sick to their stomachs.

That is right. Since the succession of the Prophet Muhammad, Shia and Sunni Muslims have been sects largely at odds with one another. The Shia-Sunni conflict is about two things at once. It is a struggle for the soul of Islam, a great war of competing theologies, and conceptions of sacred history.

Do we really belong in their conflict? At what point is the price of this war too much? Underlying all that, and often overlooked, is that our involvement is really about oil. But what scares me more than that, is now our pride comes into play. How many years will have to go by for us to give up the notion of what would it look like if we pulled out now?

To me, this one life lost, this beautiful smart Emily Perez, and how much less our country is without her and others like her, is too great a cost. Maybe our government should tell us, how many gallons of oil is each one of our finest worth? I think we all deep down know what that answer should be.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1540856,00.html?cnn=yes

[kirby]

43,000 to 48,000 Iraqi civilians killed by military? Is that riiiiiiiight? They puke out such utterly absurd "stats" for the very simple to gobble up. Be better than that.

Do yourself a favor and spend a little youtube time. Search Saddam torture. Search Saddam killing fields. Seriously, check it out. Got a strong stomach? He wasn't a panty-on-head type of torture sweetheart. He was the real deal.

How many Iraqi civilians do you imagine were killed during his time in control of that nation?

[carter08]

At least we've killed more of them than they have of us.


You forgot to mention how many Americans have needlessly died

[catman]

The point of a war is to kill people and break things. If we kill more of their people and break more of their things than they do of ours, we should win.
If you believe that killing people and breaking things is wrong, then I guess war is pointless.

[catman]

Kirby, I agree with your stance here. Leaving Saddam in power in Iraq would have cost more of their lives than removing him has, plus the insurgents and our troops.

[catman]

Bob, I see the point of your post and do not necessarily disagree with it, but to not think of the amount of funding international terrorism received during Saddam's reign, and has now lost because he is no longer in control of the purse strings of a country (a good thing for "his" people on its own), is to be a bit short-sighted. Certainly the Shia and Sunni have been fighting each other for centuries. We have gotten into this, but have not taken a side. Perhaps now it will reach its end, or they will decide that Allah would not like them killing each other anymore.

[IntheNet]

You forgot to mention how many Americans have needlessly diedOur hearts go out to every soldier that has made the ultimate sacrifice but we are very prudent in our sacrifice today...five years of Civil War yielded 600,000 Americans dead and inumerable injuries; five years of WWII yielded Americans 407,300 dead and inumerable injuries. Five years of War on Terror yielding less than 3,000 Americans is not much for the duration and constancy of struggle.

[bama4256]

I hate civilians getting killed, but every war has them. Doesbn't make it right, but its just a fact Out of those 40,000 killed I would estimate 15 percent are killed on purpose. Just my estimate from being in the military and knowing the way warriors think or how most feel toward civilians.

[tobynosker]

Originally Posted by InTheNet
five years of Civil War yielded 600,000 Americans dead and inumerable injuries

Comparing the number deaths of American military men in a war being fought in another country against those who are not American, to the deaths of American military men in a war being fought against other Americans in America just doesn't seem to be a fair comparison.

[KevinBeane]

43,000 to 48,000 Iraqi civilians killed by military? Is that riiiiiiiight? They puke out such utterly absurd "stats" for the very simple to gobble up. Be better than that.

Do yourself a favor and spend a little youtube time. Search Saddam torture. Search Saddam killing fields. Seriously, check it out. Got a strong stomach? He wasn't a panty-on-head type of torture sweetheart. He was the real deal.

How many Iraqi civilians do you imagine were killed during his time in control of that nation?


I thought we liberals were supposed to be the ones into moral relativism.

[The Pirate Bob]

Good points made by all. Allow me a shot at responding to a few, if I may.

A person or nation is either moral or not. If you going to say that you are the "good guys" and God, right, and human decency is what you stand for, then you have to live it. There is no better way to lose respect of other people or nations than to be a hypocrite. You can't get in bed with the devil one day, and declare him as your enemy the next when you have no more use for him. At least not without having to pay the consequences in the eyes of the your neighbors, not to mention the bad karma or sins (depending on your spiritual leaning) that will one day have to be answered for.

I would like to quote something very powerful to show how we are not neutral in our role in Iraq, Iran, or other nations in the region and never have been. To think we are not in Iraq to make sure our interests are served by who takes power is very naive. And not to be aware of our decades of interference in Iran's history starting way back 50 years with the Shah of Iran, through arming and assisting in the annihilation of 100,000s of "unarmed" Iranians during their war with Iraq, causes us not to understand or deal realistically with the middle east's (and the rest of the world's growing) perception of us.

I am not saying either of the fanatical waring factions is right, just showing how our continued meddling is digging us deeper and deeper into the negative mindsets of the Islamic world. To ever have a positive peaceful "adjustment" of the images all sides have of each other, we must understand clearly our history and involvement in what alot of the world sees as a choice that belongs to the people of those countries. No difference than what we would want for our own people and country.

I am not even blaming it all on the current administration. Just saying that it is so long over due that we have a leader in our country that is not afraid to recognize our history and guide our country into a 21st century global community, instead of continuing to create and add to isolation and conflict by making short sighted decisions that dig us into long term no-win situations. We are still operating our foreign policy in the mold of the McCarthyism mindset of the 50's. We need a new younger more perceptive government that can view the world with fresh eyes, strong will, and more modern image of the new information age. Our leaders have controlled us with lies, fear, and hid their real intentions under the rug long enough. This will no longer work for us, and especially for the rest of the world.

Here is the quote from the Washington Post from back in 2002.

"High on the Bush administration's list of justifications for war against Iraq are President Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons, nuclear and biological programs, and his contacts with international terrorists. What U.S. officials rarely acknowledge is that these offenses date back to a period when Hussein was seen in Washington as a valued ally.

Among the people instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald H. Rumsfeld, now defense secretary, whose December 1983 meeting with Hussein as a special presidential envoy paved the way for normalization of U.S.-Iraqi relations. Declassified documents show that Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad at a time when Iraq was using chemical weapons on an "almost daily" basis in defiance of international conventions.

The story of U.S. involvement with Saddam Hussein in the years before his 1990 attack on Kuwait -- which included large-scale intelligence sharing, supply of cluster bombs through a Chilean front company, and facilitating Iraq's acquisition of chemical and biological precursors -- is a topical example of the underside of U.S. foreign policy. It is a world in which deals can be struck with dictators, human rights violations sometimes overlooked, and accommodations made with arms proliferators, all on the principle that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."

A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in shoring up Iraqi defenses against the "human wave" attacks by suicidal Iranian troops. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52241-2002Dec29?language=printer

[Richard the Lionheart]

No need to rehatch this debate that we've had a thousand times on here...

I'd just like to again remind the opponents of the war that many of the supporters of it don't agree with a lot of their starting points. For instance, many supporters of the war don't look at this as "meddling" in someone else's business...we see a grave threat to our OWN security posed by the despotic governments of the middle-east. This is just one example of it, but I'm sure you all get the point. I don't see the need to go into any of it further again.

Anyway, stump on.