AP Tallies 3,240 Civilian Deaths in Iraq

[Matthew]

Glad we helped these people out.
here (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_COUNTING_THE_DEAD?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME)

[yeat182]

Originally posted by ScreamoEMOBoy
Glad we helped these people out.
here (http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ_COUNTING_THE_DEAD?SITE=WIMIL&SECTION=HOME)


what is the body count of innocent civilians killed due to Saddam's regime?

[BrandNewRock05]

many people may consider that those Iraqis in US uniforms that mowed down those innocents to be US deaths. Chances are those are tallied in that number.

[Matthew]

Originally posted by BrandNewRock05
many people may consider that those Iraqis in US uniforms that mowed down those innocents to be US deaths. Chances are those are tallied in that number.

indeed. those deaths would not have occured if we werent at war.

and if you average out the amount killed by saddam, im fairly sure it doesnt come close to 3,400 a month.

[evil zach]

according to iraqbodycount.net, the figures are much higher (http://iraqbodycount.net/)

[WithStamin]

Originally posted by evil zach
according to iraqbodycount.net, the figures are much higher (http://iraqbodycount.net/) That a reliable source that's definitely not trying to make Bush look as bad as possible

[kidinthecorner]

Originally posted by ScreamoEMOBoy
indeed. those deaths would not have occured if we werent at war.

and if you average out the amount killed by saddam, im fairly sure it doesnt come close to 3,400 a month. But how many deaths will there be per month in the next 10 years? It'll average out to be a tad lower than Saddam, wouldn't you guess?

[evil zach]

Originally posted by WithStamin
That a reliable source that's definitely not trying to make Bush look as bad as possible
I guess the associared press, the red cross, FOX NEWS, the times, the new york times, the christain science monitor, etc. arn't good enough for you thenhttp://iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#sources

[yeat182]

Originally posted by ScreamoEMOBoy
indeed. those deaths would not have occured if we werent at war.

and if you average out the amount killed by saddam, im fairly sure it doesnt come close to 3,400 a month.


the average doesn't matter at all, the total dead is the only number that matters, and the total killed by saddam is much higher than the total killed by the us.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
the average doesn't matter at all, the total dead is the only number that matters, and the total killed by saddam is much higher than the total killed by the us.

Human life doesn't boil down to math.

It's not like if you have a net positive body count, you're just.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by Ronin
Human life doesn't boil down to math.

It's not like if you have a net positive body count, you're just.


thats what i was saying

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
thats what i was saying


You said "total dead is the only number that matters, and the total killed by saddam is much higher than the total killed by the us"

As if the US was justified in taking innocent Iraqi lives simply because Saddam had done it on a larger scale.

It's poor justification.

[yeat182]

i didn't say we were justified because saddam has done it, i was saying it was justified because Saddam had to be stopped from continueing to do it. the number dead would be far, far greater if saddam remained in power, and 3000 is a sacrafice that had to be made to save more lives in the long run. does it suck? yes, but more lives will be saved because of it.

[Ronin]

Originally posted by yeat182
i didn't say we were justified because saddam has done it, i was saying it was justified because Saddam had to be stopped from continueing to do it. the number dead would be far, far greater if saddam remained in power, and 3000 is a sacrafice that had to be made to save more lives in the long run. does it suck? yes, but more lives will be saved because of it.

So you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette?

[tyte emo]

Dammit stop being hypocrites. There are plenty of countries where you could find just as oppressive regimes and just as many mass graves ehem Myanmar. Join the army and go blow the hell out of them if you're really so sympathetic to the people of the world who are being oppressed (and that is if you think that war actually does anything to help them).

[evil zach]

whoa whoa whoa! hold the phone! join the army? don't you thibnk thats a bit rash? I mean I'm all for war and everything, but I don't want to be the one being shot at!

[yeat182]

Originally posted by tyte emo
Dammit stop being hypocrites. There are plenty of countries where you could find just as oppressive regimes and just as many mass graves ehem Myanmar. Join the army and go blow the hell out of them if you're really so sympathetic to the people of the world who are being oppressed (and that is if you think that war actually does anything to help them).


why do people always say they are against war, and then say we should be attacking other countries first?

[Matthew]

Originally posted by yeat182
why do people always say they are against war, and then say we should be attacking other countries first?

they arent. they are just pointing out flaws in pro-war logic. if we are resolved to attack nations that have x (say x is brutal dictators), then why attack iraq on the grounds that it has x but support saudi arabia, which also has x? seems hypocritical to me.

personally, i would say that x is a problem, but non-violent solutions do exist. the only problem with them is that to really get anything done via diplomacy you have to have almost evrry world power agrred to your cause. meaning we have to convince nations like france to help us, not just ignore them and insult them. whcih means we have to have an arguable case. whcih means we have to find the fucking wmd's BEFORE we bomb the shit out of the place.

[yeat182]

Originally posted by ScreamoEMOBoy
they arent. they are just pointing out flaws in pro-war logic. if we are resolved to attack nations that have x (say x is brutal dictators), then why attack iraq on the grounds that it has x but support saudi arabia, which also has x? seems hypocritical to me.

personally, i would say that x is a problem, but non-violent solutions do exist. the only problem with them is that to really get anything done via diplomacy you have to have almost evrry world power agrred to your cause. meaning we have to convince nations like france to help us, not just ignore them and insult them. whcih means we have to have an arguable case. whcih means we have to find the fucking wmd's BEFORE we bomb the shit out of the place.


i agree with most all of that , but we couldn't find WMD's before because Iraq wasn't letting the inspectors do their job, and the UN didn't want to do anything about it. Had the whole world stood up and said, "give us access or the UN will have to use military action" , we would have gotten results without having to invade them. but countries like France and Germany and Russia decided that they didn't want too, that they wanted to stand up to America and try and act like a world power again just to spite everyone, and thus caused the whole diplomatic proscess through the UN to fail. I agree that diplomacy should always be the first option, and should be exhusted before any military action, but this time there wasn't much choice. We could have not invaded, but there would still have been no proof that iraq had no WMDs, there would still have been a brutal dictator and his regime in power, and the UN would still be a failure. At least now, Saddam is no longer in power, and we will find out for sure that there were either WMD's in Iraq or not.