More Casualties Expected in Iraq War II

[Dreadsox]

If this happens, I believe I posted way back in Sept. Oct that there would be more casualties because Saddam would approach the defence of Iraq differently this time. Here are two articles that support this that I thought people might find interesting. One is from Bill Gertz of the Washington times and the other is an Article about the United Nations preparations to deal with the Iraqi citizens that will suffer due to the war. It is scary to think that so many people are going to suffer largely in part because Saddam will play a PR game and use the civilians of his country to try and get world support.

Peace

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030107-205279.htm


http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2004746

 

[nbcrusader]

Sadaam still thinks he won the first war......

 

[STING2]

I'm actually surprised that the Iraqi's are defending that far foward out from Baghdad. It will make it easier to engage and destroy many of their units.

The United Nations estimates are based on a "protracted war" of an unknown length. A lot of the things I have read say there will be no air war near the length of "Persian Gulf I" but a simultaneous attack with both conventional ground units, air units and special forces units after only a couple of days of bombing at most. I can't say for sure that is what will happen, but most plans seem to be for a Knock Out Blow as quickly as possible. The more Iraqi units actually withdraw inside the city of Baghdad, the more difficult it will be to achieve a Quick Knock out Blow.

Perhaps the reason that Saddam is defending that far foward is that he does not trust the regular army who will make up the first line of defense.

 

[bonoman]

what happens after this is all done>?

Does the US take over the oil supplies or who holds the gov't? UN?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Didn't any of you actually read the UN's document on the consequences of attacking Iraq?

Don't you care what's going to happen to people?

900,000 refugees. That's almost a million people forced to leave their homes, their families, their lives. Where will they go? Will they flee to countries like Britain who lock them up in detention centres or offer them a pathetic ?37 a week to survive on? Or will they remain in refugee camps near Iraq, their children denied an education, having no way of contacting family or friends left behind in Iraq, often not receiving enough food because the people maintaining the refugee camp don't have enough supplies for the huge amount of people there?

THINK ABOUT IT. Imagine it's you. Imagine you have to leave your home. You can't take anything with you. You have to leave behind all your possessions. You know you'll probably never see your home again. You leave your family, you leave your friends, you leave everything that is familiar to you. Imagine making a dangerous journey to get to a refugee camp, or to get to a country where you can claim asylum.

Don't just brush it off. Don't say "oh just collateral damage." Don't say "oh well it's all Saddam's fault." Don't ignore it.

If you want to support war despite that then do so, but at least acknowledge what you're supporting. Acknowledge that in supporting an attack on Iraq you're saying you support 500,000 innocent people being injured, you're supporting 900,000 people beceoming refugees, you're supporting 3million people having too little food to survive.

It doesn't matter what excuses you make for it. It doesn't matter who you blame. It won't change the facts that by supporting an attack on Iraq you are condoning those horrendous consequences for innocent people in Iraq.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

By the way, for anyone who wants to read the report itself as opposed to a journalist's comments on it, it can be found at:

http://middleeastreference.org.uk/war021210.pdf

(it's about a 1MB file so could take a while to load)

 

[speedracer]

Didn't any of you actually read the UN's document on the consequences of attacking Iraq?

Don't you care what's going to happen to people?

900,000 refugees. That's almost a million people forced to leave their homes, their families, their lives. Where will they go? Will they flee to countries like Britain who lock them up in detention centres or offer them a pathetic ?37 a week to survive on? Or will they remain in refugee camps near Iraq, their children denied an education, having no way of contacting family or friends left behind in Iraq, often not receiving enough food because the people maintaining the refugee camp don't have enough supplies for the huge amount of people there?

THINK ABOUT IT. Imagine it's you. Imagine you have to leave your home. You can't take anything with you. You have to leave behind all your possessions. You know you'll probably never see your home again. You leave your family, you leave your friends, you leave everything that is familiar to you. Imagine making a dangerous journey to get to a refugee camp, or to get to a country where you can claim asylum.

Don't just brush it off. Don't say "oh just collateral damage." Don't say "oh well it's all Saddam's fault." Don't ignore it.

If you want to support war despite that then do so, but at least acknowledge what you're supporting. Acknowledge that in supporting an attack on Iraq you're saying you support 500,000 innocent people being injured, you're supporting 900,000 people beceoming refugees, you're supporting 3million people having too little food to survive.

It doesn't matter what excuses you make for it. It doesn't matter who you blame. It won't change the facts that by supporting an attack on Iraq you are condoning those horrendous consequences for innocent people in Iraq.

Well, let's also look at long-term consequences, not just the short-term consequences you have mentioned. If the US/UN/displaced Iraqi nationals/whoever can come up with a reasonable plan for rebuilding Iraq, it may be worth it.

(BTW, 500,000 casualties and 900,000 DPs seem like rather large figures to me, given that the population of Iraq is 22 million and the population of Baghdad is 5 million. I think that there were about 30,000 Iraqi casualties in the Persian Gulf War.)

 

[Scarletwine]

Compare 500,000 to the 3000 (rounded) lost at the WTC and Pentagon. It is a given that the WTC was an unprovoked attack, but that does not diminish the fact that many of those deaths in Iraq will be civilians.

I seriously doubt that the children that will die support Saddam or any other government. The children lost in the Oklahoma bombing didn't actively support the US government either.
I cannot condone their deaths regardless of the reason. There needs to be a better way to address the problem (assassination anyone?).

Bush hasn't let the inspectors complete their job before setting up the attack with personnel and equipment. He is going after a war with obvious results and settling his daddy's and his war group score from Desert Storm I.

 

[speedracer]

I'm actually surprised that the Iraqi's are defending that far foward out from Baghdad. It will make it easier to engage and destroy many of their units.

The United Nations estimates are based on a "protracted war" of an unknown length. A lot of the things I have read say there will be no air war near the length of "Persian Gulf I" but a simultaneous attack with both conventional ground units, air units and special forces units after only a couple of days of bombing at most. I can't say for sure that is what will happen, but most plans seem to be for a Knock Out Blow as quickly as possible. The more Iraqi units actually withdraw inside the city of Baghdad, the more difficult it will be to achieve a Quick Knock out Blow.

Perhaps the reason that Saddam is defending that far foward is that he does not trust the regular army who will make up the first line of defense.

I would tend to agree that the war, if there is one, would be relatively brief, just as Desert Storm was. I have a hard time believing that the morale of Iraqi troops (professional or otherwise) would hold up very long.

To draw a contrast with Vietnam, the Viet Cong had at least the appearance of a popular cause. I doubt you could say the same about Saddam Hussein's ruling Baath party.

It's also worth noting that it would probably be *easier* to reconstruct a functional Iraq than to reconstruct a nation like, say, Afghanistan. Iraq has not been dominated by independent warlords and guerillas for the last 30 years, and there do exist the seeds of a fruitful government in Kurdistan. There have been various squabbles among the various Iraqi exile groups over a post-war Iraq, but there should be a workable solution.

 

[STING2]

Fizzing,

3,025 people died in the 9/11 attack. No one has died or been injured in an attack to disarm Iraq because one has not been launched. The United Nations does not know how many people will be made homeless or injured. They did a study that based its results on a PROTRACTED CONFLICT! The US Military is not planning for a protracted conflict. Saddam does not have the resources to fight a protracted conflict. Even if there was a protracted conflict, I doubt the numbers that were posted. You should have seen the overblown numbers prior to the first Gulf War.

If you can say that anyone for the disarmament against Iraq is for Iraqi's being homeless or injured, I could easily say those that are not for disarming Iraq with military force are for a catastrophic Weapons of Mass Destruction attack directly or indirectly from Saddam potentially killing millions sometime in the future. Both statements are wrong.

If there were a better way to accomplish these goals, like assassination, they would be employed. As far as assassination goes, its already been tried hundreds of times by various groups in Iraq and by the US Military and intelligence services in various ways. Its simply not possible or not very likely. 22 years has proven this to be the case. Even if Assassination were successful, it would accomplish, Nothing! It could in fact make things worse. The Republican Guard numbering 100,000 are tied in every way to Saddam, and share his desires and goals. Republican Guard Division in the first Gulf War fought to the death unlike the regular Army. Unless Saddam decides to disarm peacefully as he agreed to 12 YEARS AGO, military force will be necessary to disarm him.