100,000 Civilians Dead in Iraq 478
asldihf writes "New Scientist is reporting that 100,000 civilians in Iraq are now dead due to America's war in Iraq. Make sure you vote next week."
IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to be a better way. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.
Yes, and don't forget (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:different stats (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong President (Score:5, Insightful)
The war on terror is not meant to be won, it's meant to be an excuse for any atrocity.
How can anyone think this is justified? It's sick.
600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (Score:2, Insightful)
From The Age [66.102.7.104] (Google cache to skip registration): We have records of 600,000 executions and we estimate that 180,000 died in the uprising including the Marsh Arabs. The bombing of Halabja left 5000 dead," Mr al-Huoseyni said.
Like the posting said, make sure you vote--just like the people in Iraq finally had a chance to.
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:4, Insightful)
> How many of his own people Saddam killed.
At least three times that many, plus about 900,000,000 Iranian soldiers in the gratuitous war he started.
But the question is, how come we're invoking that as an retcon [wikipedia.org] justification after failing to discover WMD, when we didn't lift a finger to stop him while he was actually doing it.
> And how many of those deaths are due to terrorists trying to recapture his legacy.
I would guess that most of the terrorists are trying to set up another radical Islamic state rather than bring Saddam back.
Some of the resistance fighters may be Saddamists (Saddamites?) though.
Re:Kerry now says he'd have gone to war too... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:different stats (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Yes, and don't forget (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm sure all those families are much happier knowing that their relatives were killed on accident.
Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (Score:5, Insightful)
Two wrongs don't make a right. We shouldn't be in a position where we are comparing ourselves to Saddam Hussein.
The important question... (Score:4, Insightful)
My guess is that history will prove that the war was worth it, not only for Iraqis but for the world as a whole.
I'm interested in seeing the new movie "Voices of Iraq" that just came out. From the reviews [reuters.com] I've read, including one on NPR last night, it sounds like it provides evidence that the average ordinary Iraqi is grateful for what the U.S. has done (even though they want us to leave as soon as possible).
Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't call having armed forces at the voting booths conducive to a fair election though. Of course, elections haven't been fair in America for quite some time [pfaw.org].
I'm not saying removing Saddam from power is a bad thing, just that it might have been more efficient to support an armed uprising than to commit our troops to 5 years of combat.
Re:different stats (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets get some things straight. There's never been a "good" war in the history of the world that didn't *first* start because of a power struggle or a politician's false pretense and was *later* justified by pointing to all the good it did.
Slavery and Saving Jews were all post-factum addendums to the Civil War and WW2. The allies FLEW OVER railways that they *knew* led to German Concentration Camps and SENT BACK refugees that had risked their lives to escape.
If you were dead, you wouldn't be glad about your noble sacrifice, you'd be dead.
Re:Death (Score:2, Insightful)
- It wasn't "we", the decision was that of the parents.
- The term "innocent" means nothing except that it exposes the hypocrisy
of the "sanctity of life" that's espoused by pro-lifers only goes so far:
if they are judged guilty of something, kill 'em.
It's easy to defend cute little babies and puppies and kittens
but the real test of faith is when you have to love thy enemy.
The abortion fight is all bullshit, and none of your business.
Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (Score:3, Insightful)
But what do numbers mean? We didn't go to war with Iraq because Saddam was killing his own people...hell, we're kinda cool with that really. Look at Stalin, Cambodia, North Korea....the only thing really thrown at them was harsh language and "you guys cut it out"...but we didn't do anything with the millions...yes, the number with the 7 digits in it...of people murdered. Even up to 1979 in the killing fields of Cambodia under Pol Pot. So please, Saddam is an amatuer when it comes to killing his own people.
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
> And why are they still doing air strikes? It's not for fun, it's not just to kill people. If the intent was to kill civillians, they'd pretty much all be dead. They're trying to get at the terrorists.
And you can see how well bombing suspected terrorists in civilian neighborhoods has worked for Israel against the Intifada.
Moreover, the air strikes in Fallujah seem to be hitting primarily citizens. Either they're bombing the city on bad intelligence, or else just bombing it to cow the population.
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting...so we were there to help.
Ah, so if another country...say China for instance...were to send troops to America to "help" us we would just lay down our arms, and welcome them with open arms? I mean, they're just trying to help right?
And if by "free from tyranny" you mean "all out civil war" then yeah, that's really something!
Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (Score:1, Insightful)
Jesus (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pissed when I get modded down for any of my pro-Bush comments, but this is just blatant bias in the text of an article. A little more objectivity wouldn't hurt here.
--trb
Re: different stats (Score:3, Insightful)
> Lets get some things straight. There's never been a "good" war in the history of the world that didn't *first* start because of a power struggle or a politician's false pretense and was *later* justified by pointing to all the good it did.
As in this case, where the "liberation" angle is emergency spin to cover the lack of WMD in Iraq.
Also re your general point, it's not possible for both sides in a war to be right, but it is possible for both sides to be wrong.
Re:Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong President (Score:2, Insightful)
You should have your mod rights stripped.
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:3, Insightful)
... or they're actually hitting insurgents, but because insurgents don't wear uniforms or dog tags, it's really hard to tell them apart from civilians.
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WTF does "The Lancet" have to do with this? (Score:1, Insightful)
Your analogy is a bit shitty. It's more like Comm. ACM talking about elections; a bit off-topic, but you're fooling yourself if the technical issues and political issues don't overlap.
Re:The skeptic's opinion: Number hard to calculate (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly! I read a story yesterday about this report and they actually said that the vast majority of the deaths were women and children. That is what tipped me off to conclude that the story was a load of crap. Does anyone honestly think that we would deliberatly attack women and children ONLY? If we were not attacking them deliberately, then why the hell would the vast majority of deaths be women and children? The polls in Iraq clearly show that Iraqis don't want Americans over there. What better way to get them to leave then to undermine their efforts by claiming that they are targeting civilians.
The problem with liberals is that they are much more inclined to believe the enemies of the USA than they are to believe the leaders of the country or even the soldiers that are over there fighting. This is like Howard Dean taking the terrorists commnets after the attack in Spain and saying it is the Presidents fault of the war in Iraq. Spain backing out of Iraq was absolutely the WORST thing that could have happened. All it did was give these morons more reason to hold people hostage, threaten beheadings, and ochestrate more attacks.
If the President wasn't a war-mongerer like you all say he is, then the extremists-to-be in the middle east would still be seething waiting for an opportunity. Bush has forced them to take a side....a side that they probably would eventually take if left alone anyway. The only reason there is more terrorism in the world now is because somebody is standing up and saying we are not going to sit here and take this crap anymore.
Flame away!
Civilians (Score:5, Insightful)
So what % of those civilians are terrorists and insurgents?
and? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no official figure for the number of
Iraqis killed since the conflict began
Well of course there's no fucking official figure. Who could possibly give an "official" figure? God?
some non-governmental estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000.
As time goes on, more people are killed, and it is possible to establish that more people have been killed.
concede that the data they based their projections on were of "limited precision,"
As opposed to most studies which are of infinite precision?
quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study
Well yes.
report was released just days before the U.S. presidential election, and the lead researcher said he wanted it that way.
And why not? Isn't this the most vital time that people hear this information?
possible that they may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq
However, this information could be biased in either direction. Some areas of Iraq were excluded because they were too dangerous for the investigators; weren't they likely to have suffered more deaths?
more household clusters would have improved the precision of the report
Well obviously. This is true for any study or poll ever published.
Re:600,000 Civilians Killed in Iraq Under Saddam (Score:2, Insightful)
Now I personally believe that 1 dead civillian is 1 dead civillian to many, but if you want to get into moral relatavism, fine. he didn't kill 600,000 every couple years - it took him a while. (Also - does that statistic include deaths from the sanctions?) So to say it would be "the same or worse" is not correct. In a cold-hearted quantitative analysis, the US has murdered civillians at a higher rate than Saddam.
While we're on the subject, why is it we never had an objection to Saddam murdering his own people until he became an official enemy? We were allied with him in the 80s when he commited some of his worst atrocities (and we were well aware of them). Yet we didn't even consider invading.
We'd just be talking about how many civilians Saddam had killed instead of trying to blame every death in Iraq on America.
Well we're not blaming every death on America, the study says (to paraphrase) "the largest cause of death was airstrikes". I don't see how we are not responsible.
I may not agree with the war, but that doesn't mean Iraq is in a worse place now because of America's interference.
Let's see... political instability, daily violence, rampant crime, devestated infrastructure, terrorist activity, and a huge civillian death toll. I fail to see how it's better. Certainly worse for all those dead people.
Re:Jesus (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm pissed when I get modded down for any of my pro-Bush comments, but this is just blatant bias in the text of an article. A little more objectivity wouldn't hurt here.
And what about when objectivity comes down on the side of "Bush is an evil fuck", hmm? Going by how the Republicans whine, objectivity is about making sure the GOP comes out smelling like roses, even when the facts are against them.
Screw that. George Bush is objectively evil. This war was a horrible idea, poorly executed, and has increased the danger to America while draining it of treasure and international goodwill. THAT is the objective truth, and partsian whining about "bias" can go screw itself.
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
>
If Iraq's women and children are shooting at us, we've got a bigger problem than even the anti-war types realize.
Disaggregate the numbers (Score:3, Insightful)
I think a lot of Americans think it's impossible for an Iraqi to look on us as occupiers rather liberators, unless that Iraqi was somehow closely associated with the regime. Well, I think this number explains a lot. Remember, you can't use gross numbers -- it's always misleading. When you take apart the numbers, some interesting insights occur. Probably a disproporitionate number of people that Sadaam killed were Kurds, whereas a disproportionate number of Iraqis killed by our aerial campaign were non-Kurd. It wouldn't be surprising then to find that Kurds are relatively more likely to support the US occupation than the average Iraqi.
Another way to disaggregate the numbers is by politics. Sadaam probably focused his murderous activities on political enemies and their families. Death by being in the wrong place, on the other hand, is indiscriminate. So if you are a Sunni man in the street, there was nothing you could do short of going out into the hills and hiding to reduce your exposure.
Furthermore, in the attempt to attack the Baathist leadership, I wouldn't be surprised if the impact fell disproportionately in Sunni areas. It's also interesting to note the difference in attitude towards the the occupation among Shii from Baghdad and those in cities like Kerbala.
In any case, the situation we have encountered in Iraq should make us chary of a strategy of leadership assassination by precision munition. Not only did this strategy have very little success, it's civilian cost was greatly underestimated (or at least underrepresented). A clearer understanding of this, along with calculating its impact on post-invasion strategy, might well have lead to different decisions during the major combat phase of the war.
Fuck em all (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do these people have the power to start war?
Joe American doesn't want a war.
He wants to screw his girlfriend, work his job, and drink a few beers.
We're all human; why the hell do we let these people make us kill each other?
What... the... hell... (Score:5, Insightful)
Article points:
+100,000 flamebait (for every dead Iraqi by US)
+1,000,000 overrated (for every dead Iraqi by Saddam)
+5 insightful (for accidentally pointing out that the 3rd parties are the only ones against it all)
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait, isn't Bush pro-life? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to meet these "experts." Do they count the bodies? What makes them so expert on this subject?
I'm starting to believe that these 100,000 civilians dead are a product of a frightened liberal media, mixed with lies from the arabs. Every time there was action in Afghanistan, for instance, the Taliban would make anouncements like "they hit a hostpital," or "they hit a school." I'm doubtful that we'll ever get a true word out of the middle east / southern asia.
I'd like to see the accounting measures that these "experts" used. I'd like to see video of them counting dead civilian bodies. Until then, it is best to remain skeptical of anything coming out of American media regarding the middle east.
Re:Typical Republican response (Score:3, Insightful)
It was a war people! The purpose of war is to KILL PEOPLE.
It's funny how attitudes have changed. 200 years ago, we would have cited "empire-building" as the reason for invading Iraq, and the world would have been fine with it, just as they were with the English, Dutch, Spanish, French, Danish, Portuguese, Italians, Russians, and Germans.
How many native americans died during Cortez's conquest of Latin/South America? How many Gauls died during Julius Caesar's conquest of Western Europe? How many Persians died at the hands of Alexander's army?
Heck, it wasn't even until last century that the Ottoman and British Empires were laid to rest!
I'm not saying that invading Iraq was the right thing to do - I went on record then saying that I didn't think we had enough cause to invade. But it is an interesting thing to observe, I think, how much different the worlds' attitude toward empires is now.
Re:Death (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't try to argue, it is a perfectly valid comparison and you know it.
We only put labels such as fetus, newborn, baby, toddler, child on a young person for convenience in conversation.
How about this labeling comparison
- start with 2 hours after conception - that new person is 2 hours old
- fetus - that new person is 4 months and 2 hours old
- 3rd trimester fetus - that person is 8 months and 2 hours old
- birth - that person is 9 months 22 days and 2 hours old
- first birthday - that person is 1 year, 9 months, 22 days and 2 hours old
- thirtieth birthday - that person is 30 years, 9 months, 22 days and 2 hours old
Do you see that the counting of life begins at conception, not at birth.. you don't lose 9 months + of your life the day you are born... that person is the same person whether 2 hours old or 30 years old. At 30 years old that person has a whole lot more mass but is the same as when that person was 10 years and 1 year and 1 month... they've simply grown a lot in the 30 + years they've been alive.
Killing a 1 hour old person is the same as killing a 30 year old person, except the 30 year old person had a chance to experience life and contribute.. the 1 hour old was deprived of this chance altogether.
I will address the issue of whether a violent criminal should be put to death or not. It's not relevant in that the person being put to death had a choice about how they would live their life. That person chose to commit a violent crime. Death or life imprisonment or rehabilitation or hospitalization... the goal is not to punish the violent criminal but to protect society from said individuals chosen way of life.
Re:Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong President (Score:3, Insightful)
The war where you are attacked and declare war on your attackers to defend yourself. Iraq did not attack us. No Iraqis attacked us. A group of mostly Saudi civillians attacked us.
When is the right time?
After you are certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are defending yourself against the right party, it may be the right time to strike back.
Someone on the playground got bullied. Joe has been known to be a bully. Should Joe be suspended from school?
Who is the right president?
Someone with sound judgement. Someone who doesn't bring personal vendetta's to the job. Someone who thinks that your sources of intelligence are to inform you, not to confirm a priori beliefs. Someone who keeps their religion private in issues of the country. Someone who doesn't think that 42% of the popular vote means a mandate from the masses. Someone who isn't going to practice more of the insane foreign policy that caused 20 people to hate America enough to kill themselves and 3000 innocents.
How long do we wait before fighting back against terrorists?
Until someone is in the process of committing a violent crime, action to punish them is prior restraint. If we go overseas and punish a foreign national, it's aggression against a sovereign nation. If we declare war with no actual reason to declare war, our actions are reprehensible and require punishment in a court of law (i.e. I'm of the opinion that Bush should be tried for war crimes).
If we don't bring them to justice do you really think they will stop trying to attack us?
If you honestly think that the children, brothers, and friends of the dead that we killed have not been made into terrorists by our actions, then you are as stupid as the previous statement sounds.
"Bringing them to justice" is just turning more foreign people who don't care about us into foreign people who hate us. None of the recent actions of the US under Bush have done anything but increase the threat of terrorist attack.
I, for one, do feel safer...
??? This only way this is possible is if you regularly watch Fox News (a.k.a. Bush's press office). Here's a little hint: Just because the President of the United States says something doesn't make it true.
Regards,
Ross
Who Is Intentionally Killing Civilians? (Score:1, Insightful)
When a U.S. airstrike accidentally kills an iraqi civilian that's a tragedy but it's something that happens in war. When insurgents use car bombs to blow up lines of Iraqi men whose only crime was wanting to help defend their country from terrorist scum, that's a war crime. It's a god-damned shame that too many liberals here on slashdot are quick to see the first act as evil while they dismiss second act as the justified response of a man when his country is invaded.
I know how much you liberals love to hate George W. Bush. Imagine if he cheats his way into power this election and starts executing people who disagree with them. Are you seriously telling me you're going to be mad if the europeans decide they're going to liberate you? That when the EU decides to eliminate the american government and install a real democracy, you guys wouldn't shit your pants with joy knowing that your hated dictator has been deposed? You seriously mean to tell me that instead of working to help secure the newly formed american democracy, you'd decide to kill anyone working with the europeans? Of course you wouldn't, and you know it. If the shoe was on the other foot and you'd been living under the iron grip of a dictator for all these years, you'd be incredibly happy that you were going to have your freedom, and you'd be pissed at those insurgents who were fighting the good men who came to free you. Of course you wouldn't be happy about it when a misplaced EU bomb killed a family member of yours, but i'm sure you wouldn't then decide to capture and decapitate european charity workers.
Please pull your heads out of your collective asses and realize that there is a fight going on, between good people who are fighting for democracy and self determination, and barbians whose goal is to kill anyone who will not submit to their vision of worldwide islamic theocracy.
Those fighting the coalition in Iraq right now are not oppressed Iraqis trying to liberate themselves by foreign oppression, they are evil men whose goal is destroy freedom around the world. I know this may sound naive and stupid when I call men evil, but there's something seriously wrong with you if you don't see people who would intentionally kill civilians and decapitate charity workers as anything but evil. If they really cared so much about iraqi freedom, why would they continually attack the Iraqis who are signing up with the iraqi national guard? Just this past week there were 49 members of the nascent Iraqi Guard were murdered. You mean to tell me that murdering men who were trying to protect your country is something a concerned citizen should do? If you're so blind that you can't see these cowards as anything but victims of United States agression, I hope to god you are never given any power.
What is curious (Score:4, Insightful)
Firstly it started off as WMDs, which are now proved to be complete crap
Then it turned into Osama and Iraq were working together which has not only not been proved, but I believe it was made official this week that there was no link
Then it turned suddenly to regieme change, yeah that's a good one lets throw out one dictator.. and put in one that's several thousand miles away
The problem with the regieme change is there are loads of other countries that are far far worse than Iraq but we like to keep those quiet.
It basically all comes down to the fact that whichever of the many reasons you choose to believe, this was an immoral and illegal war in the opinion of most people, and the US and UK governments think we're all so stupid that we'll just swallow whatever they say. And the sad thing is, a lot of us will.
What's worrying is this: I've watched part of the debates, and I watched some of question time last night. People were heckling and jeering opinions that didn't match their own. No one in the USA (and this is the viewpoint of a fair few UK people) seems to ever listen. Everyone believes whatever they choose to beleive, usually on one-sided evidence and refuses to listen to the other side. Unfortunately, those people are then allowed to vote.
I just hope that whatever does happen, someone keeps their brain in gear, because only when all the world leaders come up from their bunkers and see there is no one and nothing left to rule over, will they realise that nobody wins a war. Nobody.
Re:Bull$hit (Score:1, Insightful)
Right on! If I level city blocks to get at insurgents, not deliberately targeting civilians, I'm off the hook!!!
Kill On!
What part of mass murder don't you understand?
Re:different stats (Score:2, Insightful)
Is that the "politically correct" way these days to describe Iraq's invasion and capture of Kuwait, followed by threats to invade Saudi Arabia? So, is it your contention that the Jews control Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, or that all of the oil in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is really Iraqi oil?
Start considering the 10 or so years of "sanctions", with the millions of casualties, birth-defects, etc.
Are you speaking about the sanctions imposed by the UN (the organization so many people want approving wars these days) after Iraq invaded Kuwait? Are those the same sanctions imposed to force Iraq to dismantle its WMD programs which included chemical weapons used in war against Iran, biological weapons, and a very advanced nuclear weapons program? Are those the sanctions which Saddam tried to game by refrigerating corpses from all over the country and moving them to Baghdad for parades of misery? Are those sanctions the ones that he tried to evade with the Oil for Food program bribes worth billions of dollars to officials from the UN, France, Russia, and a host of other nations and organizations while diverting the money intended for food and medicine to contraband? Never heard of them.
Re:Typical Republican response (Score:5, Insightful)
We also frown upon tying people to crosses and lighting them on fire. Funny how times change.
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:1, Insightful)
Idiot. The majority of Iraqis are against the militants, and a good deal of the militants are imported from other countries.
Re:different stats (Score:2, Insightful)
This is clearly flamebait. Israel has no desire for hegemony over the Middle East. They would like, more than anything else, to be left alone by their neighbors.
Re: Yes, and don't forget (Score:3, Insightful)
Are these reports from the same folks who told us the Iraqis would throw flowers at our tanks?
Are these reports from the same folks who said Saddam had WMD ready to fire in 45 minutes?
Are these reports from the same folks who underestimated the extent of Saddam's WMD programs before gulf war 1?
Are these reports from the same folks who didn't see the Pakistani A-bomb coming?
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)