Official Death Toll In Iraq Is Now 600 - When Will It Stop?

KPicha · Mar 31, 2004

Yeah, it really sucks! Now they're dragging American corpses through the streets! :eek:

Talk about sick.

johnbryanpeters · Mar 31, 2004

Wotcha think we'd be doing if another country occupied the U. S.?

Freak · Mar 31, 2004

Moving to political debate forum!

Psychic_Pimp · Mar 31, 2004

According to inside sources, two of my good friends have brothers stationed in Iraq, the real numbers are much higher than that.

I am told that when someone is critically injured and later dies of their injury, they are not added to the death tolls. After all, they didn't die in combat in Iraq, did they? They died on a hospital ship off shore.

We may never know the real numbers

quadricolour · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by Psychic_Pimp
I am told that when someone is critically injured and later dies of their injury, they are not added to the death tolls. After all, they didn't die in combat in Iraq, did they? They died on a hospital ship off shore.

Interesting. I'd like to see this verified. Makes sense, kind of like how nobody has ever died at Disneyland.

N8 v2.0 · Mar 31, 2004

JRogers · Mar 31, 2004

Originally posted by Old_Dude
According to CNN.com (link to story) there have now been 600 American military personnel killed in Iraq.

I realize that the vast majority of Iraqis probably want peace and don't condone this type of behavior, but, why can't we just get out & let them take care of themselves? Give every woman, man and child a few grenade launchers, automatic rifles and hordes of ammo and just leave - let them fight it out among themselves.

How we got there in the first place - I dunno.

And, no, of course I don't mind if this is moved to the political forum.

Great idea. We'll see how well that turns out. I hope you were not serious. I know it was hyperbole, but the general principle is still not great.

It seems to me that the biggest problem in the entire world at this point in time, the one overarching issue that pervades so many things and is so unsolvable is that of development in nonwestern nations and the gap between the West and the rest. Problems are serious, often worsening, with no solution in sight. Do we want to leave right away and essentially ensure that Iraq continues in the grand tradition of post-colonial nations and Africa, Asia and Latin America? The legacy of instability, chronic economic problems, inability to improve conditions, oppressive regimes, unequal rights and grossly uneven distribution of all kinds of capital is present in so many nations. Not saying that Iraq is a colonial state (FAR from it in many ways) but I am saying that without intense outside-sourced reconstruction, stable and even leadership systems and other changes, leaving Iraq would be a huge mistake. I don't understand how people make this an issue: it is moot whether we should have gotten involved in Iraq or not. The point is that we are there and we have the power to make positive changes. Not saying that staying there will necessarily ensure a positive outcome but it will increase the likelihood. If we left Iraq to its own devices, the powerful would stay in power at the expense of the minority and likely to the profit of themselves. That's what history shows us.

Changleen · Mar 31, 2004

Like that's not happening everywhere? Including here in the US?

So your entire family lives and two others live in a single room? I think you can probably appreciate the difference in scale here... What's happening here in the US is totally different. Even though the rich get richer, everyone's quality of life improves. That's not gonna happen in Iraq if left to it's own devices.

I think that if we let them fight it out, the powerful reach the top that much quicker than if we just hang around and try to teach them what democracy is all about - and tally up more casualties in the process.

No, those with most firepower will reach the top - and tally up more casualties in the process. We need to have enough manpower there to impose order properly, and as for teaching them 'what democracy is all about' - I think they probably know that, they just need some help facilitating it's introduction.

I have no respect for the American leadership which promoted this "war" and the "stabilization" efforts now in place. I respect the soldiers who are taking orders, but the people at the top - the real decision makers - are just stupid idiotic fools.

Well, I agree with that, although the stabilization efforts are failing as they are not well enough funded, manpowered or planned. Not because they're a bad idea.

Instead of teaching Iraqis how to live decent, civilized lives, it'd be much easier to train a hive of bumble bees so that when you blew a whistle, they'd fly in formation and spell out "God Bless America" and made buzzing sounds to mimick "The Star Spangled Banner".

It'd be 'easier' not to do anything, but the US invaded Iraq, not the other way round, and now has the responsibility to do the right thing. Walking away now would just prove even further to the world that the US really is just a self interested, imperialistic, immature country.

JRogers · Apr 1, 2004

Originally posted by Old_Dude
Like that's not happening everywhere? Including here in the US?

Who helped us out when we had our civil war? How bad are the people of South Vietnam now, after we finally left? I think that if we let them fight it out, the powerful reach the top that much quicker than if we just hang around and try to teach them what democracy is all about - and tally up more casualties in the process.

I have no respect for the American leadership which promoted this "war" and the "stabilization" efforts now in place. I respect the soldiers who are taking orders, but the people at the top - the real decision makers - are just stupid idiotic fools.

Instead of teaching Iraqis how to live decent, civilized lives, it'd be much easier to train a hive of bumble bees so that when you blew a whistle, they'd fly in formation and spell out "God Bless America" and made buzzing sounds to mimick "The Star Spangled Banner".

As Changleen commented, you are not seeing the issue with some sort of scale. If you think the US has the characteristics I talked about, just take a look at the sort of country I had in mind and compare. I don't like Bush. I think he's an idiot. Compare him to Robert Mugabe. I'd take Bush over Mugabe any time. At least Bush doesn't stay in power illegitimately by rigging elections or simply stealing the office. He doesn't control through fear and torture with a farce of democracy. He has not lead our country into economic and agricultural meltdown largely due to entirely incompetent and selfish policy. And Mugabe may be among the worst but he is by no means in a league of his own. I don't want Iraq to become another Zimbabwe, another Liberia or Colombia or Guatemala. Maybe the US staying there and trying to set up a government will help. Maybe the end result will be the same; there are no guarantees. But, at least a US presence likely adds a measure of stability.

Further, your last paragraph, though I might be taking it the wrong way, sounds terribly ethnocentric. Sounds as if you are saying that there is some inherent problem with Iraqis that makes "us" incapapble of teaching them to live "decently". That it'd be better if we let them kill each other off for a while and throw their country into what might be permanent disarray because they are beyond help.

Trond · Apr 1, 2004

....and about 10.000 Iraqi civilians have been killed over the same period of time....

N8 v2.0 · Apr 2, 2004

Originally posted by Old_Dude
Based on your signature, I don't think that stat is "useless".

And sadly, based on my research, personally I am convinced those numbers are fairly accurate.

Yeah, but killed by whom and under what circumstances?

MikeD · Apr 2, 2004

Originally posted by Old_Dude
That's exactly what I'm saying. How old is their culture?

How old is ours? (speaking of the U.S.)

If anyone really thinks Iraqis have the ability to comprehend the benefits of a democratic society - let alone do anything to promote such a livlihood - then they're living in some sort of twisted fantasy world and need to wake up and smell the coffee.

I'd wager that of all the countries in the middle east, Iraq definitely had the potential to democratize first. The Ba'ath party was secular, not theocratic, and while totalitarian and despicable in Saddam Hussein's regime, they were still a modernizing influence (hence the US backing for so long), unlike many middle eastern leaders who want to perpetuate an outdated theocracy in order to retain their sociopolitical status. (Notice they are devout in exhorting poor people to strap bombs to themselves...but stay out of harm's way during their Jihads.)

Iraq was actually a very modern country at one point under the ba'athists. [edit:] People remember that, and if they were looking to choose a model to live by, would likely move towards a mode of government that allowed them the higher standard of living and better life, yet still maintained their islamic beliefs. (which are basically the same as judeo-christian if you take out the fanaticism, which is just as inherent to islam as crusades are to chrisitianity...) So, instead of an anti-US theocracy or useless Saudi-style monarchy, you have a democracy in the model of, say, Turkey...and a willing and democratic trading partner. [end edit, just wanted to clarify possible progression from saddam to democracy]

Now, the US has fostered conditions in which Iraq is likely to move backward. The floodgates have opened, and the outsiders pouring in to resist the Great Satan have pretty much made it inevitable that whatever government the US allows will lack legitimacy and be brought down by those who'd love to turn back the clock.

And, in doing so, the US made a breeding ground for islamist terrorism. Which is really ironic, considering that Osama bin Laden was at odds with Hussein for a long time. In fact, one of Bin Laden's stated reasons for hating the US was its occupation of Saudi Arabia during gulf war I...he wanted to be the holy warrior protecting Islam from the evil secular ba'athists (leading his muhajadeen fighters from the afghan conflict), and instead was marginalized and the real infidels did the job for him.

What's really trippy is that Hussein himself was using Jihad rhetoric this time around...amazing how we turned two dangerous enemies into bedfellows against us. And while Hussein would have loved to see the US suffer, no doubt, he was pretty happy being a thug in his corner of the world. I truly don't believe he was a threat to us, and now we've really stirred up a worldwide hornet's nest.

Anyhow, where the hell did you form your opinions on the Iraqi people and society? From watching the news? Read a history book or something. You might be suprised to learn that the Howard Stern version of politics and history isn't very accurate. I know how my coffee smells...do you?

MD

slein · Apr 2, 2004

how many people in the continental US (and those two other parts) have been killed by since the first US casualty?

cuz i'm thinking more people die per capita in the states compared to IRAQ. it just might be safer over there...

anyway... why don't you just finish the mission the SHRUB started?

MikeD · Apr 3, 2004

Originally posted by Old_Dude
Gee - this is better than sleeping pills.

(yawn)

(zzzzzzzzzzz)

Exactly. Why discuss the real situation when you can draw innacurate conclusions without bothering to learn the truth?

MD

JRogers · Apr 3, 2004

Originally posted by Old_Dude
That's exactly what I'm saying. How old is their culture?

How old is ours? (speaking of the U.S.)

If anyone really thinks Iraqis have the ability to comprehend the benefits of a democratic society - let alone do anything to promote such a livlihood - then they're living in some sort of twisted fantasy world and need to wake up and smell the coffee.

We never should have gone in - it's way beyond time to get out.

First of all, I find that viewing the situation like this lacks any sort of compassion and understanding for the Iraqi people.

Hey, but I sort of agree with you, I mean, you gotta make sure you don't shake things up, right? You know, like trying to educate an African slave- look how long African societies just lived in the bush and never amounted to anything. No cities, no great art, just poor people without a real god or great mind. Just goes to show you that those people were beyond hope and even teaching them to read was a mistake as they would never be able to actually learn (look how little they knew already!) and even if they could, they'd never be able to actually use their talents. :rolleyes:

--Yeah, sounds a bit fishy doesn't it. People can't change, can't learn and can't grow because of what we see as how their society is. You statements hover (right) above racism, supported by a thin thread.

Oh, and while you think that over, toss this around: how many societies have changed from monarchic or theocratic systems to democracies? How many countries have wavered between the two?

JRogers · Apr 4, 2004

Originally posted by Old_Dude
LOL! Dude that's the most ridiculous comeback I've ever, ever read. I needed that! LOL!

Too bad you just don't "get it" - but this doesn't distract from the point that your analogy is downright hilarious - so irrelevant to my comments or the topic at hand.

Hey, keep tryin' dude - maybe someday, right?

Good response. You really got to the heart of the issue by insulting me and never actually responding or providing any reasoning in your defense. Easy to defend things when you don't actually discuss them. Of course, you could have just said "Gee - this is better than sleeping pills" like eariler in the thread. At least you got off on insulting me to make yourself feel better so it wasn't a total waste.

So, anyways, my analogy presents a situation: someone making a judgment on individuals based on poorly concieved notions of their culture, history and society. Generalization about an entire group of people based on historical reasoning that lacks any sign that shows little actual compassion for the people and shows that consideration of other histories in other places and societies was not a concern.

$tinkle · Apr 23, 2004

Originally posted by Old_Dude
Here's a great "culture wake up call"

culture?

what you talkin' bout, willis? al-Sadr is a THUG

$tinkle · Apr 24, 2004

Originally posted by Old_Dude

This is just another Viet Nam - plain & simple. You can sugar coat it all day long, but that's what this thing was from the beginning and that's what it is now. Instead of "protecting against communist aggression" the new enemy has a different name - big deal, anyone who is honest can see this is the same, needless battle.

<and so on...>

old_dude re-hashing old_news.

you are such a tool of the left. Peep this:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Several dozen photographs of coffins recently identified by news organizations as remains of U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq are really images from the space shuttle Columbia explosion last year, U.S. space officials said on Friday.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration said up to 73 images posted on a Web site, www.thememoryhole.org, that media organizations used were mistakenly identified as photos of casualties from Iraq.

"Many news organizations across the country are mistakenly identifying the flag-draped caskets of the space shuttle Columbia's crew as those of war casualties from Iraq," NASA said.

linky-poo

if it's "another vietnam: plain & simple", then why isn't it another vietnam: plain & simple?

Try doing a little research. Specifically, the methods employed in this war (surgical strikes vs carpet bombing), the deaths (58,000 vs 700), the time span (1 year vs 12 years), how our troops are supported now, despite the best efforts of ted kennedy's mouthpieces like you who are undermining the effort & giving aide & comfort to the enemy.

did you know that after the tet offensive, things were going our way, but the PR machine gave the vietcong new life to keep going? if you must be partisan, do so in such a manner which will not embolden the enemy in killing our troops who you imply to so dearly love. You do no service to the likes of pat tillman & others when you become a hate-americas first echo-chamber.

show just a modicum of balance in your postings if you want to be taken seriously.

Just Lookin'... · Apr 25, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
old_dude re-hashing old_news.

you are such a tool of the left. Peep this:

if it's "another vietnam: plain & simple", then why isn't it another vietnam: plain & simple?

Try doing a little research. Specifically, the methods employed in this war (surgical strikes vs carpet bombing), the deaths (58,000 vs 700), the time span (1 year vs 12 years), how our troops are supported now, despite the best efforts of ted kennedy's mouthpieces like you who are undermining the effort & giving aide & comfort to the enemy.

i paraphrased that, admittedly; it sounds like the tripe i hear in a bar around closing time. emotional and irrational.

the vietnam reference could pertain less to body count and more to strategic pitfalls, but you don't give me the impression that you pay attention to broad-spectrum strategies and tactics. or in fact relevant socio-political demographics.

none of us knows how long this 'conflict' [sound familiar?] in viet-iraq will last. that is, we won't until we pull the last group of troops and 'advisors' out [likely by helicopter, no?]

literally thousands of knowledgeable, educated observers of the middle east have postulated that any attempt to enforce 'peace' on iraq (a land whose national boundaries were 'formed' artificially (Ottomans and the British, to name a couple), thus including mutually divisive and hostile cultures.

I'm a republican and i believe this war to be a huge waste of valuable lives, money, and resources unnamed.

i guess in your kindergarten rhetoric that makes me a 'tool of the left' and a 'mouthpiece' for the Kennedy dinosaur?

fluff · Apr 25, 2004

The main similarities to Vietnam are:

It's a long way from the USA
It's difficult to distinguish civilians from Enemy combatants
US troops are dying
Lots of indigent civilians are dying
US citizens (and UK ones too) are being misled by politicians
The US is gradually becoming more unpopular with the locals

Biggest differences?

It is not a war against democracy (as was Vietnam)
It is not a war propping up an unpopular state against another that are essentially part of the same nation
There is a strategic reason to be there
There is an effort to reduce civilian casualties
There is no conscription of troops

I'm still not convinced of the 'surgical strike' argument, historically they are always revised downwards in success rates and cluster bombs cannot be described as anything other than indiscriminate.

I still don't think we should have gone in there but to pull out now would be to leave a void that would be filled by genocide and extremism. That may happen anyway but we have a responsibility to return some stability to the country.

$tinkle · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by Old_Dude
That might be true, however, I think if you lined up all 700+ caskets at once and looked at them and then looked into the crying eyes of those loved ones left behind and then asked yourself - why? - you'd see things more clearly.

this could be said of WWI/II, Korean conflict, bay of pigs, vietnam, grenada, gulf war I, i.e. any military conflict, for they all have casualties. I don't see why i would see war any differently viewing draped coffins in a c-17. I grew up in arlington, served 9 years active duty, work on a military contract in a military town, and am therefore quite familiar w/ the seriousness of war. In my opinion, this is a worthy cause with a hefty price. Recall that before the conflict started, there were estimates this would slough on for more than a year, w/ upwards of 1,000 deaths. It's not rosey, i know, but it certainly isn't that bleak & pulling out our troops would --- oh jeez, do i really have to list all the reasons why that's not the right thing to do?

Originally posted by Old_Dude
Maybe you're like only 8 or 9 years old, I dunno, but that would explain a lot.

And, just in case you don't understand the word, I'll help you out:

na·ive or na·ïve

i'm certainly not the octogenarian you appear to be, but nice ad hominem just the same

Originally posted by Old_Dude
Dude - chill. Perhaps you should point out anything I've said that could be interpreted as "I hate America". I'm sorry if I did because just the opposite is true. Do you still believe in freedom of speech? I seriously doubt it, unless the person "speaking" has their head burried in the sand as deep as yours is. I don't hate-america and again, why you think that is beyond my comprehension.

now chilling.
yes, i believe in freedom of speech, but not freedom of bile.
on w/ the quotes:

Originally posted by Old_Dude
this mess was based on the "I'm gonna finish the job my daddy started" philosophy. George W & his buddies are a bunch of trigger-happy goofballs.

i think i have figured out your MO: go after the man, not the position, not the argument. Perhaps you don't hate america, but just those in charge of running it.

Originally posted by Old_Dude
I simply hate lawmakers who make asinine decisions.

hate is not a family value.

Originally posted by Old_Dude
And frankly - and honestly - I could care less if people who violently disagree with me take me seriously or not.

perhaps you'd have a different opinion if you were doning a flak jacket defending this country you purport to so dearly love.

$tinkle · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
i paraphrased that, admittedly; it sounds like the tripe i hear in a bar around closing time. emotional and irrational.

the vietnam reference could pertain less to body count and more to strategic pitfalls, but you don't give me the impression that you pay attention to broad-spectrum strategies and tactics. or in fact relevant socio-political demographics.

in addition to what fluff posted:
desert vs jungle
insurgents/terrorist vs regular army
(now) absence of air campaign vs active air campaign (linebacker & agent orange)
superior technology
lack of free-fire zones
republican vs democrat started it (my favorite)

Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
none of us knows how long this 'conflict' [sound familiar?] in viet-iraq will last. that is, we won't until we pull the last group of troops and 'advisors' out [likely by helicopter, no?]

please point out where we knew exactly when any conflict was going to end.
BTW, mark your calendar for 30 june.

Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
literally thousands of knowledgeable, educated observers of the middle east have postulated that any attempt to enforce 'peace' on iraq (a land whose national boundaries were 'formed' artificially (Ottomans and the British, to name a couple), thus including mutually divisive and hostile cultures.

true, although i believe the goal is not to be like us, just a rule of the people by the people.

Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
I'm a republican and i believe this war to be a huge waste of valuable lives, money, and resources unnamed.

i'm right leaning (can't sell out) & believe this to be an invaluable investment in the lives of future iraqis. Resources are to be used, not hoarded.

Originally posted by Just Lookin'...
i guess in your kindergarten rhetoric that makes me a 'tool of the left' and a 'mouthpiece' for the Kennedy dinosaur?

this comment is in direct conflict w/ your opening salvo. If you feel the need, please clarify.

$tinkle · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by fluff
The main similarities to Vietnam (or any other bleedin war)are:

It's a long way from the USA
It's difficult to distinguish civilians from Enemy combatants
US troops are dying
Lots of indigent civilians are dying
US citizens (and UK ones too) are being misled by politicians
The US is gradually becoming more unpopular with the locals

(point hidden in crimson text)

Originally posted by fluff
I'm still not convinced of the 'surgical strike' argument, historically they are always revised downwards in success rates and cluster bombs cannot be described as anything other than indiscriminate.

you're probably right, but are we still using cluster bombs? i thought these were a no-no & disallowed under GC rules of engagement

Originally posted by fluff
I still don't think we should have gone in there but to pull out now would be to leave a void that would be filled by genocide and extremism. That may happen anyway but we have a responsibility to return some stability to the country.

concur.

brenth · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by $tinkle
(point hidden in crimson text)
you're probably right, but are we still using cluster bombs? i thought these were a no-no & disallowed under GC rules of engagementconcur.

link

I have no idea if this is true or not, but this is the first I've heard of it.

google news search

$tinkle · Apr 26, 2004

Originally posted by brenth
link

I have no idea if this is true or not, but this is the first I've heard of it.

google news search

this is a bit suspicious:

accused US troops of using internationally banned cluster bombs

for i didn't realize "troops" dropped bombs. Perhaps they mean U.S. forces.

the second link points me toward Iraq occupation watch, the beeb, dissident voice, axis of logic, islam online, alternet, left hook, pravda(!)...

when i start seeing UPI, AP, & even my last pick reuters, then i'll take these reports a little more seriously.

brenth · Apr 26, 2004

I agree it is a little odd, but I am just posting what I found yo!

I did notice that into the third page it was very dissident pages that were carring these stories, plus the fact that to me, if the rules of engagement state that cluster bombs are off limits, why whould the US even have them over there?

MikeD · Apr 26, 2004

Be a little skeptical of anyone who says US military snipers are shooting [presumably unarmed] women and children. Speaking militarily, a US sniper wouldn't compromise his mission, his position, and his life by shooting people that posed no threat to US forces. If women and children are armed, or carrying arms and ammunition to fighters, or even being used as human shields by fighters, then yes, they're going to be targeted-their blood is on their own hands, or that of the people exploiting them.

Plus, using cluster bombs in built-up areas isn't the soundest of tactics, either. They're not very accurate. The unexploded ordnance problem they create is a big deal when you need to sweep through the areas you have bombed...and the way the Marine Corps fights, air is merely a supporting arm for ground combat ops, not an end in and of itself, like it is for the Air Force, Navy, and sometimes the Army. Plus, cluster bombs aren't terribly effective against an enemy under cover. I'd expect them to use FAE under those conditions, (edit: civilian proximity permitting, of course...FAE is nasty and indiscriminate stuff) if friendlies weren't in close proximity to the target, and smaller, possibly guided conventional bombs and helicopter-launched rockets and guns in a close-in fight.

Anyhow, that whole article is a little vague for me to take very seriously. Allegations are a very cost-effective weapon.

That is to say, I'm sure such allegations are being made, but I tend to think that those making them are the same extremists who are bombing other Muslims, then leading the mourning parades through the streets chanting anti-American slogans.

However, I think it's amazing that the US government actually thought it was putting itself in a winnable situation going into this. This all seems VERY forseeable, and now we're stuck in it...

The same American public that was so easily distracted from the real war on terror and led into supporting war in Iraq is now on a knee-jerk reverse reaction. It wants to bail out, citing superficial resemblances to Vietnam, and leave Iraq as a TRUE hotbed for terrorism. Brilliant. Positively brilliant.

MD

Official Death Toll In Iraq Is Now 600 - When Will It Stop?

Monkey

Velma

Hero

...............................................

Chimp

Monkey

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

talks too much

Monkey

Paranoid Member

talks too much

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

Not the sharpest tool in the shed

Monkey

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

Monkey

Monkey

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists

talks too much

Monkey

talks too much

Monkey

Monkey

Expert on blowing

Monkey

Monkey

Expert on blowing

Monkey

Chimp

Monkey Turbo

Expert on blowing

Monkey

Expert on blowing

Expert on blowing

Monkey

Expert on blowing

Monkey

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists