New Iraqi body count - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-06-2005, 09:16 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 03:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by dazzlingamy


And im talking about dictators NOW. (btw, i see that america only took an interest in WW2 when pearl harbour was bombed. ins't that ironic)

America had been supplying arms and other aid to Britain and covertly attacking German seacraft before Pearl Harbor was bombed.
__________________

__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 07-07-2005, 10:50 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 03:45 AM
dazzingly amy, your logic is seriously flawed.

you criticise the US for going into Iraq, then say we should be helping every other country under a dictator. you say we should keep out of other peoples' business, then you criticise us for waiting to get our military involved in WW2 until it involved us more directly.
__________________

__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 07-19-2005, 03:43 PM   #18
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 04:45 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/...unt/index.html

__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 07-19-2005, 04:37 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 03:45 AM
pax, I was just about to post that!

I'm sort of confused by part of it. It cites American/coalition forces as responsible for 37% of all civilian deaths, and anti-coalition forces as responsible for only 9%. Then it says "criminals" were responsible for 36% of deaths. What do they mean by criminals? They aren't incorporating the unrelated murder figures into the statistics, are they? Or do they consider some groups "freedom fighters" and others simply criminals? Am I missing something?
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 03:23 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by VertigoGal
pax, I was just about to post that!

I'm sort of confused by part of it. It cites American/coalition forces as responsible for 37% of all civilian deaths, and anti-coalition forces as responsible for only 9%. Then it says "criminals" were responsible for 36% of deaths. What do they mean by criminals? They aren't incorporating the unrelated murder figures into the statistics, are they? Or do they consider some groups "freedom fighters" and others simply criminals? Am I missing something?
I wouldn't pay much attention to the report because it is done by particular anti-war groups that are unlikely to be objective and report data that did not support their political views. They rely on media reports instead of actually identifying bodies and determining the cause of death.

Media reports and anti-war groups claimed Israely soldiers murdered 7,000 civilians back in Jenin in 2002. Forensic experts later went in and determined that only 48 civilians had been killed and all of their deaths were the results of accidents.

The United States military does not target civilians! The Terrorist/insurgents do target Civilians. That fact alone shows you just how unobjective and political motivated bodycounts figures are.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 03:53 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 03:45 AM
Sting, I agree that some counts, like the 100,000 claim, were exaggerated and politically motivated. But why do you think that this particular count is slanted? What's your take on the civilian death toll then? I know our use of smart bombs is way up since the first Gulf War (I think), but surely we've accidentally killed civilians over there. What source would you trust for an accurate count of civilian deaths?
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 07-22-2005, 04:23 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by VertigoGal
Sting, I agree that some counts, like the 100,000 claim, were exaggerated and politically motivated. But why do you think that this particular count is slanted? What's your take on the civilian death toll then? I know our use of smart bombs is way up since the first Gulf War (I think), but surely we've accidentally killed civilians over there. What source would you trust for an accurate count of civilian deaths?
I think it is slanted for two reasons:

#1 the mythology used to arrive at the count, which just uses media reports, is simply inaccurate.

#2 The obvious political motivations of the groups behind the count, which is why there are absurd results claiming that the largest killer of civilians in Iraq is a group that does not target civilians, the US military and coaltion.

The US military goes to extreme lengths to insure that civilians are not harmed or killed in fighting. Of course, in certain situations that will be impossible, but the fact remains that there is not another military force on the planet that takes more care when it comes to preventing civilian loss of life. More over, the technology the US military has to help it in achieving this objective is far ahead of other military forces around the world. Its not just smart bombs, it also involves having better intelligence about the location of certain individuals, as well as better tactics to catch or kill them with causing harm to civilians. Also, the US military has the best equipment in the world to jam or deactivate terrorist bombs in the area.

The United States military does not engage in official body counts although from time to time they do estimate insurgent losses. The best and most accurate body count is something that would be done by the countries Police Force and forensic/medical specialist/workers who are able to identify bodies and determine cause of death as well as what killed them. Unfortunately at this time, Iraq does not yet have resources to give such an accurate count. It is time consuming and takes up a lot of important resources to give a 100% accounting of who, where, and how various people across Iraq have died. Just because someone is found dead with gunshot or shrapnel wounds does not mean it was the result of the US military.

To sum up, there is currently no group in Iraq that is able to give an accurate count on the real number of civlians deaths as well as who was responsible for the deaths. Iraq's Police and Medical teams are doing counts at this time, but I think it will be sometime before they can give a truely accurate count.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-23-2005, 02:19 PM   #23
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 09:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I wouldn't pay much attention to the report because it is done by particular anti-war groups that are unlikely to be objective and report data that did not support their political views. They rely on media reports instead of actually identifying bodies and determining the cause of death.

Media reports and anti-war groups claimed Israely soldiers murdered 7,000 civilians back in Jenin in 2002. Forensic experts later went in and determined that only 48 civilians had been killed and all of their deaths were the results of accidents.
I wouldn't pay much attention to pro-war posters' posts on this sub-forum as they are created by people that are unlikely to be objective or to report data that does not support their political views and pro-Iraq war slant. They relie on pro-US military propaganda instead of actually identifying bodies and determining the cause of death.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 07-23-2005, 05:33 PM   #24
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Objectivity doesn't matter when you're always right.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 07-28-2005, 05:10 PM   #25
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Sting2, you forget that a UN team tried 3 times to go into the Jenin camp but were turned back by tanks. The Israelis took a week to "clean the place up" before they let people in.The old story. Cover-up. It was so obvious a 3 -yr old could see it.

It was the same kind of Sharon's unique brand of crap that an Israeli court tried and convicted him for 20 yrs ago..so that he was barred from public office for 10 yrs. The only time an Israeli offical was found at least party guilty of this type of crime.

Leopards never change their spots.
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 07-29-2005, 02:59 PM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 08:45 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Teta040
Sting2, you forget that a UN team tried 3 times to go into the Jenin camp but were turned back by tanks. The Israelis took a week to "clean the place up" before they let people in.The old story. Cover-up. It was so obvious a 3 -yr old could see it.

It was the same kind of Sharon's unique brand of crap that an Israeli court tried and convicted him for 20 yrs ago..so that he was barred from public office for 10 yrs. The only time an Israeli offical was found at least party guilty of this type of crime.

Leopards never change their spots.
You forget that the UN team was able to account for everyone in the town and to interview thousands of people who actually lived in Jenin as well as to study the entire area to insure that there was no cover up. The Serbs tried to cover up the massacres they committed in Bosnia, but they were easily caught once teams were able to go in and investigate and the Serbs had years to cover things up. Both citizens of Jenin and Israely troops confirmed the same account of what took place and UN teams studied the area and found that 48 civilians were killed and the study of their bodies revealed that all were killed as a result of accidents.

If it was the Israely military's main objective to kill innocent palestinian civilians, they could have killed them all 40 years ago when they first occupied the West Bank.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-31-2005, 10:48 AM   #27
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 01:45 AM
Here's something I posted in another thread that i'll post here with some changes:

The Iraq war is filled with lies. I remember in late 2002, before Bush sent in weapons inspectors to Iraq, he said that if they find weapons, and yet Iraq doesn't disarm, there will be a war. Bush was confident that he will definitely find weapons. However, the weapons inspectors found absolutely no weapons. But Bush wanted to go to war anyway. Therefore, before the war started, Bush changed his story, instead of making Iraq disarm, he said that Saddam Hussein must step down as leader within 3 days, or else the U.S. will attack. He also added another reason why the U.S. should go to war: Iraq/Al-Qaeda/9-11 relations. By giving this reason to the American people, many people supported the war.

So first Bush said that the U.S. will attack Iraq if they don't disarm. But when he found they have no weapons, he added 2 more reasons: the fact that Saddam is an evil dictator and that Iraq has relations with Al-Qaeda/9-11. Now, out of these 3 reasons, the first and third ones are bullshit. But Bush needed these 2 lies to get approval of the American people to go to war.

The pro-war people argue that it is good that we went into war even though Iraq had no weapons or a connection with Al-Qaeda/9-11, because Saddam was such an evil dictator and it is good that we removed him from power. For people who believe that the war is a good idea for this one reason, it is still the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time for numerous reasons:

1) Iraq was never a direct threat to the U.S.

2) There are other nations that have evil dictators AND nuclear weapons AND are threats to the U.S. (North Korea) So we should focus on North Korea and not waste our time, money, and troops on Iraq.

3) Besides North Korea, another direct threat to the U.S. is Al-Qaeda. We should have sent more troops into the Afghan-Pakistan border. President Musharaff is not allowing U.S. troops into Pakistan. However there is a region in Northern Pakistan that is not controlled by the Pakistani government. Rather, it is controlled by radicals who support Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and are against the U.S. Osama Bin Laden is probably in this region or near. Now Bush should have worked with the Pakistan government and focused on trying to get U.S. troops into this region of Pakistan only.

4) Although I don't support a war against Iran, I must say that Iran is a much more dangerous country then Iraq. Before 9-11, it let many of the hijackers pass through it's country while knowing who they were. Also, we all know that Iran HAS nuclear weapons as opposed to Iraq.

5) Bush had no exit strategy for the Iraq war. More people have died after he declared that major combat is over in Iraq.

6) The cost of this war is enormous. Not only do we have to pay right now, taxpayers will be paying for the war for many years to come, money that we could have used to pay for other things. The cost of the war is defintely driving down the American economy. Check out this link: http://costofwar.com/

7) As of today there have been 1,978 coalition deaths in Iraq, 1,786 of them Americans. The death toll of the Iraqis themselves has been ignored, but as of today there have been an estimated 23,140-26,189 Iraqi deaths. I feel bad for all the soldiers, they were brave enough to risk their own lives for their countries. But I even feel worse for these more then 20,000 Iraqis which include many men, women, children (including many new-born babies), because what did these people do to put their lives at risk and end? I remember the Bush administration saying that they will only be attacking political buildings of the Iraqi government, and will avoid the civilian population.

8) One last point: If the U.S. has WMD's, then they shouldn't force other countries to disarm. The U.S. is a bully.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 07-31-2005, 04:35 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 06:45 PM
1) But it did pose a direct threat too strategic interests, it could also be argued that it was a persistent threat in that he retained the capacity of the WMD programs and had every intention of restarting said programs after sanctions were lifted.

2) The fact of the matter is that North Korea is attempting to hold the world too ransom yet again. Because of the situation there it is not plausible to initiate a war to depose Kim Jong-Il, in that situation diplomacy is by far the best option. Iraq also represents a convergence of interests; it removes the threat posed by Saddam once and for all. It can enable democratic reforms in the region and puts increased pressure on the despotic governments from their own people. That is not a post-belum argument, it was right there from the beginning ~ just look at Bush's state of the union adress illustrating that key point before the war even began.

3) The tribal regions of Pakistan are still regions of Pakistan. Putting US troops in the country could inflame the situation. Musharraf already has enough threats against him and surrendering Pakistans sovereignty to US troops could be the straw that breaks the camels back ~ that is not a good situation.

4) We do not know that Iran has nuclear weapons, we do know that they have an advanced nuclear weapons program and that they have been playing the same script book of being a bit more bold before demanding concessions. There is no need to go to war with Iran, a popular revolution can be initiated and a democratic Iraq is crutial too that.

5) I think that the entire concept of a guaranteed and set in stone exit strategy aptly demonstrates what Osama Bin Laden said about the weakness of the US. How if a few casualties are inflicted upon your forces you will leave without much of a fight. Have a strategy to leave ~ which has been hinted at, with troop reductions and adjustments ~ but only do so when certain targets have been met. Letting Iraq collapse would only create a lot more danger in the long term.

6) War costs money, it costs a lot of money.

7) The war against the Baathist regime is over, they were deposed quickly and adequately. It is a different type of war too wipe out Jihadists and Baathist Remnants, it is one where your enemy uses the civilian population as human sheilds and works to maximise civilian casualties as a propaganda tool. It is a shitty situation but please bear in mind the cost of peace when dealing with Iraq ~ the number of innocent people who died because of Saddam, the mass graves, the children who were starved under oil for food, the campaigns of the secret police.

8) As opposed too innocent as a lamb Saddam, who would never use his CBR weapons for nefarious purposes?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-31-2005, 08:23 PM   #29
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 01:45 AM
the U.S. have many more problems then a dictator who poses no threat to them. this war was/is/will be pointless. when we went into Iraq, most people supported it, now the war approval is less then 50%, and as time goes on it is going to sink more. the bush administration is messing with our minds, and as time goes on more and more people will realize that.
__________________

__________________
Infinity is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com