"500+ dead? What's the big deal?"

[placton]

I have heard several otherwise intelligent (if GOP-ite) folks make this comment about the dead GIs in Iraq. Their take is the military has really not lost much, and that dying is part of the job. Amazing, eh?

Of course, the media fails to mention that the equivalent of almost an entire division (about 15,000 troops) has been invalided out.

Any suggestions for counter-arguments that have not already been discussed?

[ramapo]

1. That's cause their kids don't serve

[i_am_not_john_galt]

2. IF you agree with the war in Iraq,

then 500 dead (and several thousand casualties) is really not that high a price, compared with the historical price of freedom. We've come through some unusual conflicts where our casualties are numbered in the dozens, but it is foolishness to think of waging war as a safe enterprise.

However if you think the Iraq war is wrong, than even one life is too many.

[bobbieinok]

4. saw somewhere that 500 dead in 10 months is MORE

than the number of US soldiers who died the first THREE years of VN

[i_am_not_john_galt]

5. True, but apples and oranges

The first few years of Vietnam we send advisors and observers, rather than trying to invade the place in force. Vietnam was a slow build to a big conflict. Iraq is a big conflict that is evolving into a trickle of attrition.

[arcane1]

8. that "trickle of attrition"

has killed more than the war itself

no big deal, as long as we get all the good "reconstruction" contracts....

:puke:

[i_am_not_john_galt]

11. the trickle of attrition is actually more effective

If we'd lost 500 in the major conflict and then it had been peaceful I don't think casualties would be considered unacceptable by most. It's the drip, drip, drip of more dead sons and daughters that really erodes resolve.

[arcane1]

12. true, though

I am afraid the drip drip is having a frog-in-hot-water effect, so that most never really grasp just how many people 500 is. Since attacks are usually reported as 1 or 2 dead here, 3-4 dead there, grass-grazers never do the math for themselves... :(

[PATRICK]

55. In the First Crusade

They took tremendous losses, but there was a continuous river of volunteers constantly coming in. Fantasy soaked, ignorant, brutal fighters with a brigand past. Volunteers, not people ordered in by chickenhawks for lies and sordid profit. This has been first degree murder by the planners and backers of this invasion. Our soldiers have been mere tools to them.

[sable302]

7. Yep

Only, I think it's more like the first 5 years. Just from my memory, though.

[Jackpine Radical]

10. Maybe so, but

I think we were losing something like 500 a month when I was there in '67-'68.

[Toots]

20. Do you think anyone really believes that by killing Iraqis

we are being kept free? Is America really that insecure do you think? 9-11 was a crime not an act of war and people should treat it as such. Countries declare war not people. People commit crimes. America is not at war. If losing fifty eight thousand people in Vietnam was a police action then I really can't see Iraq being worse. We allowed the North Vietnamese to conquer the South and guess what? Low and behold we did not lose our freedom here in America. We actually lost a critical war against Communists who were going to topple the world and take our freedoms. Guess What?? We did not lose our freedom. So I ask did GIs die in Vietnam to keepus free? Are GIs dying in Iraq to keep us free?

[leyton]

26. It's not about American freedom...

it has a lot to do with Iraq freedom.

You may disagree with the war in Iraq, the way it was sold to the American people, the bait-and-switch, and perhaps rightly so. But with Saddam in power, how many innocent Iraqis would have died in vain? How many women would Uday Hussein have raped? How many would Saddam's regime murder? More than 500... and there wouldn't be headlines. There would be statistics, of course, but who outside Iraq would really take notice? Despite the political motives and implications of the war, I'll consider our 500 deaths the lesser of two evils, by far.

[arcane1]

28. you seem to assume

that we will be installing GOd's own angels to run Iraq, you forget that the SAME CREW in DC today is the SAME CREW that befriended, finacned, supplied, trained, and supported Saddam

you are also conveniently leaving out the officially-uncounted civilian casualties. If we are so humanitarian over there, why do we hids the numbers?? What are they afraid of?

You have bought into more spin than you give yourself credit for

[ComerPerro]

29. but that is the problem

You have conservatives screaming about Clinton and his military action, and they are touting an isolationist platform. Then you have a smirking, know-it-all jackass in the Presidential debates saying that he would never "nation build" and would only use the military when we were in danger.

Well, guess what. Turns out we were in no danger, and all this was really was nation building and a way to get some campaign contributors great profits.

Spare me the rhetorical bullshit about how great it is now that the Iraqi people are free.

[ignatius]

53. You are leaving one huge number out of your analysis, that

being dead Iraqis. Guestimates I have heard are 12,000..but who really knows..Rummy doesn't do body counts.

Also, many of the mass graves were filled with Kurds who we inspired and instigated to lead an overthrow of Hussein in '91. Then we backed away, leaving them on their own. A very moral dilemma, are we guilty of causing many of those murders? A very Dostoevsky dilemma.

[RapidCreek]

76. Great...

shoot yourself in the head as a show of support and I'll shake your cold dead hand.

RC

[NickB79]

78. I'm sure the women of Iraq are ever-grateful

Since the rates of rape and murder have SKYROCKETTED since we've taken over. But hey, at least they're not being raped by Uday now, right? And I'm sure the women will be delighted that, now that the US is in control, Lt. Bremer has agreed to a law change that would basically remove ALL of the rights women have enjoyed in Iraq for the past 40 yrs. In their place, laws based upon a fundamentalist Islamic interpretation are going to be put in place. In case you didn't catch in on CNN, Iraqi women are protesting throughout Iraq against this change. They're so grateful the US is helping to push the women's movement in Iraq back by centuries.

As for the vast numbers of people Saddam murdered, you do realize that many of those dead were killed in the 1991 uprisings in northern and southern Iraq that the US encouraged, don't you? We promised Iraqi rebels air support if they attacked Saddam's troops, but when they attacked, the US refused to provide any cover whatsoever. Saddam's troops then slaughtered the rebels by the tens of thousands. Very Bay-of-Pigs-like. Hey, guess history really does repeat itself!

[Yavin4]

65. Actually, We Did Lose Our Freedom After Vietnam

But it occured 25 years or so later in Florida 2000.

[bluestateguy]

3. Next year it will be "1000 dead: What's the big deal?"

They'll keep pushing back the goal posts. At some point you should tell them to get up off their big, fat white asses and enlist. I will not fight in their wars.

[arcane1]

6. they hate America, and piss on the troops

with remarks like that. And I'm not afraid to call them on it!

:grr:

[sinkingfeeling]

9. I just go ballistic when someone says it's 'part of their job'....

There was a LTTE in USA Today in early December from some woman who said she was 'so sorry for the families of the dead, BUT....' it was what they signed up to do. I returned fire, but USA Today didn't publish my letter. Ask how many of the 505 were Reservists or National Guard. Did these guys really anticipate they would be called up to be send to a full-blown war zone where they would be sent out on raids of people's homes and incur deadly anger? Ask them what their children and grandchildren will have available to them in the future (under the GOP fascists), when the Army may be the best paying and only job around?

[wadestock]

13. It may take 2 years and 1000 dead

The Soviets didn't leave Afghanistan because of military equipment attrition. They left because of troop attrition and low moral.

Over 10 years they lost an average of about 3 people per day.

As you know, we're holding at perhaps 1 per day...but our "threshold of pain" may be considerably lower than the Soviets.

In the end it may take 1000 dead for people to realize this was a head hunting expedition that carried way to heavy a price tag.

[htuttle]

14. I bet they were holding a little American flag when they said that...

...weren't they?

[Hav]

15. 500? Hah! That's nothing!

500 and missing legs and arms don't matter.Ever heard about car accidents?Cancer?Aids?These 500 are nothing.
I tell ya,when we got hit on 9/11 we had to strike back and I'm damn proud we kicked some arab ass there!And as long as someone else kid is asked to die for that cause then I'm damn fine with that.

However, these 18 in Somalia matter, if you wanna talk about that!
Librul coward!

Wait,Lee Greenwood is playing,so let me get my hand out of my trouser so that I can stand up.







(PS please don't tombstone me...)

[Occulus]

71. if you're being sarcastic,

the /sarcasm flag is much appreciated. Just type /sarcasm, and you won't get tombstoned for it.

If, on the other hand, you're serious, well....

[are_we_united_yet]

96. let me finish it

well.... drop dead

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

16. what are the casualty figures on the other side - military+civilian

oh right - they don't "do" bodycounts

[i_am_not_john_galt]

18. but arguably less than

the casualties of leaving Saddam in power.

[Solomon]

22. You really believe this don't you?

Amazing.

[i_am_not_john_galt]

38. Nah, I'm BS'ing

the bodies in the desert and all the gassed Kurds were just another Bush conspiracy.

[Minstrel Boy]

52. You can't begin to imagine

how right you are.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

67. Amen

:toast:

[Occulus]

72. actually

who gassed those Kurds- and I presume you're talking about that one village back during the Iran/Iraq war, since that's what all the OTHER Bushites refer to- who actually gassed them is very much an open question to this very day.

The evidence points to Iran, as the type opf gas that was used was known to have been favored by Iran. But we can't really know, can we? I mean, they were just civilians in the way in a war zone.

Right?

:eyes:

[RapidCreek]

77. Poove it.

RC

[Mari333]

17. b*sh LIED THEY DIED

and my loved one IS going to Iraq.
Look into their faces , all ye warmongers who sit in your comfy armchairs and order pizza and scream like banshees about honour and war on the Internet...ALL THESE KIDS ARE DEAD FOR NOTHING
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/what/viewpoint/newyears2004.html

AND every child and civilian that died in Iraq died for NOTHING.

NOTHING.
NOTHING.
NOTHING.

"This war is a fraud." Sen. Edward Kennedy

[BuelahWitch]

69. Your family is in our prayers and good wishes Mari333

Your own courage is astounding. :hi:

[ConsAreLiars]

75. Thank you

Now bookmarked. I tried Google repeatedly and got all sorts of useless irrelevancies.

If you know the webmaster maybe ask them to link the pix a at the bottom to Fisk's site.

And links to this site might be worth a google-bombing effort.

[justsam]

19. the real shame

is that Bush has attended over 140 fund raisers, but not one furneral, and the SOB was AWOL over a year when he was in..

[Snappy]

21. Families

505 families probably don't consider their losses as light. The thousands that no longer have arms &/or legs probably don't consider their losses light.

15,000 Iraqis dead. Come on. How many Americans give a damn about those?

What are these sacrifices for?

Guess the reasons for the American families just have to be "Defending America's Freedom", "Liberating the Iraqi people", "Fighting for Democracy" etc. Can it be otherwise?

[Jacobin]

23. One word answer: DRAFT

When its back in place and middle class kids start getting shot, the whole attitude will change.

[MacCovern]

24. How about 78,173,400 dead!!!!!!!!!

That was the number of people who died in WWII (civilian and military).
American military deaths in WWII were approximately 405,000.

All of the 500+ deaths in Iraq are sad, and catastrophic to the families of the dead service people, but from a historical perspective it is extremely low for a military campaign.

Look at it this way: In World War II over 37,000 people died, on average, each and every day for several years. In today's world it is tough to imagine such carnage. The death toll amounted to almost 5% of the world's population in WWII. The 78 million plus estimate I used is from "Dirty Little Secrets of World War II" and is considered a conservative estimate.

[arcane1]

25. and your point is...?

the number of dead from WW2 is totally irrelevant. One could say there is no big deal about the 3,000 dead on 9/11 because so many more died in WW2, and it would have just as much relevance.

dead is dead. How many does it have to be before it is TOO MANY? Doesn't the REASON AND CAUSE of their deaths enter your picture at any time??

here is an "historical perspective"

in WW2 it was the Nazis who were the aggressors, the invaders.

Today, it is the USA

[MacCovern]

31. Yes, reason and cause does matter.....

in their deaths.

The voters will determine some of your questions in November, but right now I have to think the American public is not alarmed at the casualty level, but that could change in the months ahead!!!!!!!!! I don't think as a nation we would be comfortable with the continued news of Americans dying in Iraq at a rate of even 3 a week for a few more months.

[Lars39]

27. World War II is considered a just war----Iraq invasion is not.

Big difference.

[ComerPerro]

30. and?

Seriously. I am having a lot of trouble seeing your point.

Of course, that could just be because it is a load of shit.

[Minstrel Boy]

54. If you want to get into a numbers game,

at least take into account the total dead of the Iraq catastrophe, which includes, yes, Iraqis.

[pschoeb]

85. The better comparison would be the American Philippine War

It was an immoral invasion, to "free" the people of the Philippines, it lasted a little over two years and we took over the Philippines (population, and technology level differences consistent with the Iraq war, no outside support to the Phillipines) in that war in a little over two years, 1,109 American soldiers died in combat, 2,108 died of other causes and 2,779 were wounded.

The non combat number is unusually high, because most died from tropical diseases and poor conditions, the best bet for an American soldier was to be taken prisoner, as the Army of the Philipino Republic treated all prisoners of war as if they were high dignitary's. The Americans on the other hand largely eschewed taking prisoners, on the premise that it was easier to kill them, thus the Philipine military deaths were 20,000+, civilian deaths were anywhere from 200,000 - 1 million.

WWII was like the name implies a WORLD WAR, it was literally fought across the territory of 20+ countries with total armys running over a hundred million(the military deaths for the USSR alone was over 20 million). The Foes were in the top ranking of industrialized nations, with proven world class military skills. It was the most destructive war in History and would hardly be a good comparison. If we used it as a comparison for any fighting, we would come to the conclusion that there actually had never been any wars in history.

Also there were 16.5 million American soldiers serving in WWII, not the paltry 135,000(roughly that serving in the American Philippine War) that are serving in Iraq. Also the Wounded in WWII is not significantly larger than the dead, there were 680,000 Americans wounded in WWII, but in Iraq the number of wounded is much much higher than the number dead. We have at least 3,255(number from November) battle wounded (higher for all casualties, but the numbers from previous wars is battle wounded). That's over six times higher than the dead, compared with a number thats usually about double. The death rate is lower than normal because of our massive technology, and our ability to rapidly get people to medical facilities, my guess is that many of the wounded are living through wounds that would have killed in previous wars. But if I compare it to the American Philippine War, we are doing pretty bad, we haven't even finished a year and our casualty rate is nearing 4,000 compared with the casualty rate of 6,000 for an over two year bloody war, and this isn't counting the British dead and wounded.

Patrick Schoeb

[Malva Zebrina]

32. I have never been a number person

so it means little to me when someone says--five hundred--? That is low for a war.

Five hundred once energetic alive young people were killed on the lies of George Bush. They did not have to die and were and are being used by George Bush to , at this point, save his political hide. He, actually had them killed because there was no reason to invade IRaq--and those that he stated were LIES. And the young vibrant people who had so much to live for, were killed, actually by their own president, if you want to look at it that way

I imagine five hundred faces, bodies , names, and other things that tell me these were human beings not numbers. I give them names. Two were reported killed today--I give them names and faces,hair coloring, skin coloring, height and weight. They are REAL people, not numbers.

It is a crime that Bush has lied to use these troops. Further, the photo ops are an insult. He, as we know, was himself AWOL. This is a crime.

[shanti]

33. argggh!

if it was THEIR son/daughter, they WOULD think it was a big deal!!

[arcane1]

34. or their mother/father/sister/brother/aunt/uncle/husband/wife....

:grr:


the people who say this HATE AMERICA AND PISS ON THE TROOPS!!! Don't EVER let them convince you otherwise....

:mad:

[Mari333]

35. amen this war is a fraud

and all our soldiers died for NOTHING. NOTHING. NOTHING.

[Columbia]

39. When I was in Iraq...

I spoke to an Iraqi in An Nasiriyah who showed me some pictures of his friends. One was part of a dissident group and was taken by the Fedeyeen and never seen again. Another was tortured and thrown in jail for years.

You may think that our servicemembers died for nothing, but to many Iraqis, those who died for their freedom from tyranny are true heroes.

[oldcoot]

40. Secret Police

Did you know that the United States government is planning to establish a secret police force in Iraq? Do you think that the secret police force will be interested in freedom and civil liberties for Iraqis?

Here are links to two articles about the U.S. plan to establish a secret police force in Iraq: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/04/1073151210964.html and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/04/wirq04.xml .

[Columbia]

41. They will be more free than they ever were under Saddam.

[NickB79]

79. Yeah, until Iraq democratically elects a fundamentalist Islamic government

IF the US allows free elections in Iraq, the government elected will almost certainly be an ayatollah-controlled, Islamic fundamentalist government very similar to Iran's is today. Over 60% of the Iraqi population is made up of Shiite Muslims, the same hardline religion that dominates Iran. They will elect their Ayatolloh or start a civil war trying. Just a few days ago over 100,000 Shiites protested in Iraq for their right to direct voting to elect their Ayatolloh to rule Iraq. Would you argue that Iran is a shining light of freedom to the world today? Iran has less freedom than even Saddam-controlled Iraq had. The phrase "out of the frying pan and into the fire" comes to mind.

The only way this won't happen is if the US WITHHOLDS from the Iraqis the freedom to vote for their representative government and install a puppet dictator. And, unless the US backs up that dictator with US military power, there will be a civil war the likes of which Iraq hasn't seen in decades. If the US does act, they will have to kill tens of thousands more Iraqis who would be fighting for their freedom. Ironic, ain't it?

[Columbia]

80. You're dealing in hypotheticals

Governance is a very complex issue as your post clearly elucidates. However, even now Sistani is backing off on the elections issue. It will be a delicate process to ensure that there is a balance of power between the diverse populace in Iraq, but I am confident it will happen. However much I dislike Bush, I will not hope for failure in Iraq simply to see him gone.

[NickB79]

81. It's not hypothetical that Iraqi women are losing their rights

See my post #78. That is actually happening, no hypotheticals about it. If this is any example of the work the US government is doing in Iraq restoring their freedoms, I stand by my prediction that Iraq will evolve into a fundamentalist regime 100%.

[Columbia]

83. The women are right to protest this

And I hope it will get resolved for the better. I don't know what will become of Iraq, but I refuse to be negative and make dire predictions. I have friends (Iraqi and military alike) over there and I hope and pray that peace and prosperity will be upon the Iraqi people soon. Inshallah.

[oldcoot]

82. What evidence are you basing your assumption on?

Secret police are not known for their benign interrogation techniques or their interest in due process. It is likely that they would use torture to obtain information. The Iraqi people are as likely to be terrified of a secret police force created by the United States as they were of Saddam Hussein's men. They are going to have to take the same precautions they took during Hussein's regime to survive. This means that they will have to censor themselves to avoid any possible contact with the secret police. Is this freedom?

[Columbia]

84. I say again

Saddam executed those who disagreed with him. He even executed those who did agree with him, but did not do his work satisfactorily.

I don't know what will become of this so-called secret police. Maybe they will become what we know of as the FBI and investigate domestic terrorism. I don't pretend to know the details of it, but I am confident they will not compare to the atrocities of the Fedayeen Saddam.

[rman]

43. when i speak to Americans,

they tell me about the Patriot Act and other laws that undermide the US constitution, allowing the US government to do much of the same evil things that Saddam did. Sentenced without a trial, for an indefinate amount of time, based on nothing but suspicion of so called terrorist activity.

So, who's going to liberate the US?

[Columbia]

46. I don't like the Patriot Act either

But they are a far cry from mass graves.

[arcane1]

48. we have created more than a few mass graves of our own over 12 years...

I see, so far, no reason to expect the lives of average Iraqis to be any better. Will obesity once again be the #1 health problem among children? Doubt it...

Saddam was our thug, and we are merely going to attempt replacing him with a new thug, hired by the same gang that kept Saddam in power in the 80's.

I guess our mass graves are ok, though, right?

[Columbia]

50. Parents letting their kids eat too much fast food and candy

Is also a far cry from execution for dissent.

[arcane1]

60. pre-Gulf War...

Obesity was the #1 health problem among Iraqi children. Now it's cancer.

and last I heard, WE were arresting large numbers of Iraqis who made "anti-coalition statements"

god knows what we are doing with them after incarceration

same old boss, a new face

[Columbia]

61. You're just making stuff up now

The biggest health problem affecting children is diarrhea.

The only people we arrest are the ones attacking our troops and other Iraqis.

[arcane1]

63. you know this for a fact, huh?

get real, you know shit about the "only" people we arrest

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22anti-coalition+statements%22

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/763824.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2940097.stm

[Columbia]

64. One thin story about one man does not a conspiracy make

[Bridget Burke]

44. This is really interesting.

Please give us some more details about when you were in Iraq.

Recently? Military? Or do you work for Halliburton?

[Columbia]

47. Military

Part of initial invasion.

[Malva Zebrina]

90. the number of children who died under the sanctions? Do you know

how many died from malnutrition and disease--including probably as it's most frequent--diarrhea. For ten years Iraq was brutally "punished" by the US and Britain with frequent bombings in the "no fly" zone and killing the people those bombs happened to hit as well as probably necessary infrastructure that could have made life easier and healthier for those 500,000 children who we and Britain killed with those sanctions. Not only that, but talk to Cheney about how much money Halliburton made in the latter part of the 1990's making oil deals with Saddam, and of course everybody knows we made deals with Saddam prior to the first Gulf War.

Sorry--there is NOTHING that justifiess this criminal act--NOTHING. It was done with lies, many lies, not just one lie and it was done for nefarious purposes--not to liberate the people after we kill tens of thousands of them, but to get what Iraq has--it's stuff that we want and covet and like barbarians, take it by murder , slaughter and plunder.

Nothing you can say about what Iraq was and etc etc justifies this aggression and invasion.

[Mari333]

45. We are there to make Bush and his Oil friends wealthy

a new tyranny in place....thats all...
It is NOT the job of the USA to force change on other countries....no matter how many dictators and oppression there are in other countries...Nor is it MY stepsons job to die for the Bush regime so they can get large oil contracts for their friends under the guise of liberating the Iraqi people, which, BTW, was NOT the reasons *Bush gave for the invasion of Iraq...
He said the Iraq invasion was because of an imminent threat....45 minutes a nuclear attack from Iraq..HE LIED
The whole thing is a fraud, Iraq is on the verge of civil war, and the Iraqis want our asses OUT of there NOW
Dont gamble with my stepsons life for a LIE unless you are willing to send YOUR kid over there or send yourSELF over there to cover the asses of the wealthy and corporate bastards who want to seize the oil fields..because thats all this was EVER about.....
and Our Soldiers died for NOTHING

[Columbia]

49. You're entitled to you opinion

You can believe what you want and you very well could be right. Personally, I think your views tilt to the cynical extreme, but that's ok. But despite your charges don't think that there aren't good things happening over there.

As far as being over there, I already was.

[Mari333]

56. Did you talk to the children who are dead from our bombs?

or their families? If you work for an oil company, I doubt it. They dont want us there, and I want my child home.
all for nothing.

[Columbia]

59. You'd be surprised

that despite the horrors of war, Iraqis are willing to forgive and look to a hopeful future.

[Mari333]

68. They can work at Wal Mart..Im sure companies will outsource

their jobs now to Iraq, while the civil war ensues that we caused..
No, you wish to merely send My stepson over there to make wealthy men even wealthier..
This war is a fraud. You want to kill my stepson for Bush, and you are on ignore.
I dont speak to murderers.

[Columbia]

70. Wow

I say that Iraqis are better off now and I get labeled as a murderer. Thanks a lot.

[Malva Zebrina]

88. well it's nice to know you think they did not die for nothing

I am certain the grieving parents are delighted to know they are defending the Iraqi's "freedoms". If the cause is so noble, why did George Bush see fit to lie about it and kill tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi people with his shock n awe?

This is exactly the defense Bush would have you take in order to justify his war crimes and I think this is war crimes and treason. He needs to be impeached, called to face his crimes, and prosecuted accordingly.

Instead, we see little outrage in America. Our young people are being killed--Since this thread started the number is no longer 500--it is now 509 -- and we see apathetic reporting--no outrage--no protests -- dumb silence over our boys and girls being used by Bush and being killed for no reason. We have lost our critical thinking process , lost our soul and conscience, and sense of honor and pride --we are the dullards Bush would have us be--Bush's propaganda machine has seen to it that we should know as little as possible about the war he started in Eastasia.

[Columbia]

91. I wouldn't want to die for Iraq either

And I'm glad I didn't. I also don't think we should have gone to war as well. However, that does not mean that will cloud my judgement over the positive changes that have happened. You and others can think that the negative outweighs the positive (as I do), but that does not preclude there to be any positive whatsover.

As a response to your other post above, the sanctions were imposed by the UN and the havoc that ensued was not due directly to the sanctions, but by Saddam using them to create a humanitarian crisis in order to affect international opinion to overturn the sanctions. He willingly withheld medical supplies and foodstuffs and let public infrastructure languish while building lavish palaces and investing in as much military spending as possible.

[Malva Zebrina]

92. there is no proof of that.

The continued and incessant bombings in the no fly zone were not the work of the UN. And, if the US and Britain wanted to end those sanctions against Iraq in the UN, they could have done so easily. They did not choose to do so, in spite of the reports of various humanitarian groups who were sending out the message that thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children were being killed and were dying because of those brutal sanctions.

And, it is surprising to me that you blane the deaths of all those little children on the UN and fail to understand that Bush invaded the already debilitated Iraq by LYING to the UN and thumbing his nose at the respected inspectors who found nothing, who did not sanction this attack. Further, all of the mainstream religions abhored the pre empt8ive attack on Iraq--virtually NO spiritual leader sanctioned this pre emtive invasion on scanty evidence, and indeed many were outspoken as to the injustice of this barbaric attack

They were right.

They did not advocate invasion on this pretense to "liberate" the Iraqi people and virtually none that I know of take that stand now that we have occopied Iraq. In other words, your argument that there is "good" in this, does not hold water with many who are concerned about the morality of this invasion. HOw could it?--thousands were killed on a lie. It is of no consequence how many can now be grateful that Saddam is gone--how can it when thousands of innocent children, women and old men were killed by the bombs in order to occupy the country and get what it has?

If you think that the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people of Iraq, including little children and including preganant women and old men is justified because finally Saddam was eleiminated I submit to you that your thinking is skewed, leaning toward Machiavellianism in order to find something, anything, positive about the barbarism of George Bush's invasion to get oil.

We as a country do not invade and kill and murder and ignore internationaly law to get whqt we wand out of that country, give it nothing of any value, squeeze it dry by putting our mega corporations in there to get everything they ever wanted out of it, and then give the crumbs to the *Iraq people who must now still grovel to someone, like American, in order to sustain themself and their family.

It will NEVER be justified when murder and killing and illegal and injust invasion is the tool to "liberate". That makes no moral or ethical or spiritual sense.

You will see, as time goes on, this is NOT freedom--it is a do over, a sinister weave to cover up the US invasion to get what the Iraqi has as his or her natural resources.

Bush wanted to STEAL their stuff, their oil., He does not care about liberating anyone--he is too stupid and does not care eneough to do so and so, we with lowered, shameful gaze, slump back in to the UN to beg that they actually free the Iraqi people--from us!! LOL

The Iraqi will be in civil war as it is becoming evident with the lack of cohesion from the Bush administration--the Iraqi will have nothing of value of his own that the US does not control and controls because they saw fit under Bush, to TAKE IT by force and to kill to get it.

We are the big guys--we got the money and we got the military stuff and we prevail and we can kill thousands of Iraqi people, children and old men and women because, simply we have the better, more hi tech weapons. It is not the first time=-we have not evolved further than when Columbus landed and promptly enslaved and persecuted all those natives who were, at the least, benign and no threat, in order to get their stuff--the land and the possible gold. So many were killed and murdered and incarcerated in off shore islands. Thousands upon thousands of natives died because of the Western greed, under Columbus.

There can be nothing good about this invasion because it was done on immoral grounds to begin with.

[Columbia]

93. Did you even read my post?

I don't think it was worth it to invade Iraq either and I made that quite clear earlier. However, I am not of the opinion here to deflect, defend, and deny Saddam's horrible deeds. I PERSONALLY know people who were affected by this thug and will never submit that getting rid of him was a bad thing.

I also will not let my hatred of Bush and his policies get the best of me and hope that Iraq falls into civil war so we can gleefully say "I told you so!"

I've already been called a murderer and a barbarian in this one thread alone because I hope and believe that Iraq has a future of peace and prosperity. I'm done here.

[Occulus]

73. My usual response is

"Ok, I'll remember that when I'm on the local draft board and YOUR kid is next in line."

Shuts em up right quick.

[Sabriel]

36. True body count?

I've often wondered how "deaths" are counted in the military. Is it only people who died on the ground...in Iraq...or does it count people who die after they're flown out to military hospitals? I find it hard to believe that NOBODY dies later from injuries sustained in Iraq, but the deaths I see reported are always "were killed in Iraq when their convoy....". In other words, are military people dying at hospitals but not being included in the count? Can anyone help with this?

[arcane1]

37. those deaths don't get counted, at least publicly

that's why you hear about "hostile" deaths and the like. I have seen NOTHING about people who may have died from injuries... indeed, you have to dig quite deep just to find numbers on the injured...

"cooking the books" with American lives, basically

[rman]

42. while claiming to "support the troops"

-

[leesa]

51. They are trying to skirt the real issue that we went to war twice during

three years because our government lied to us. This is a GOP talking point and like most of them it's an 'apples and oranges distraction from the real issue' arguement.

[proud patriot]

57. The big Deal is the media has not reported the numbers

since they topped 500 ..I'm so mad I could spit :mad:

[JackDragna]

58. You know something? They're right.

In absolute millitary terms, 500 isn't a whole lot of people dead compared to our other conflicts. No soldier's death, however, is any the less meaningful because of it. These men and women died because of a lie. The loss of a single soldier in a patently politically-motivated war is a crime of unspeakable proportions.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

87. Iraq is an illegal war perpetrated by an unlawful government....

...that has resulted in the deaths of 507 Americans (that we know of at this point) where the death of even one American was one too many.

[wadestock]

62. The main point

now that I think about it is that bush declared it as a war.

It never had to be a war....and in fact it wasn't a war.....it was as close to a slaughter as you can get.

In fact, the deaths of American soldiers now could be equated probably most directly to murders than anything else.

Would you want to send your son to Iraq and have him murdered?

So when you compare WWII to the so called Iraq "WAR"....well it's apples and oranges.

It so far has been a slaughter of 20K plus Iraqis and soon to be thousands of American lives.

By all standards, past and present, it is a travesty.

[methinks2]

66. how about

a sharp pointy stick in the eye.
Seriously, if they think dying is not a big deal, tell them to volunteer for Iraq. They can call us from hell and tell us how it is over there.

[ConsAreLiars]

74. It's not the absolute price paid, it is the "return on investment"

Ask them to do the math.

Many say that what they US got was worse than nothing, but if they disagree ask them:

What was gained by the price paid? What exactly? Anything?

Averting the "mushroom cloud"
Getting (back) the bio weapons?
Getting (back) the chems?
Shutting down rape rooms? (For extra credit how many lives is invading Thailand worth? Or maybe Might get a better return there.
Happy Iraqis? Yup they're dancing in the streets by the 100,000's and setting off fireworks.

What is it worth in lives and suffering? 500 US dead and 12,000 seriously wounded? And who knows how many scarred in ways that don't get them transported out. 10X that? 100X?

You might ask them to consider the price of an Iraqi life lost or destroyed, if they think the value is greater than zero. If they need help understanding the question sent them here, or print out an album to show them:
(Warning: pix of real human beings - real dead and real maimed.)
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

Oh, and ask them if they have any estimate on the costs associated with the intensification of Anti-US sentiment in the world?

Ask them to do the math.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

86. Vietnam: Total of 401 dead for seven years from 1956 through 1963....

Iraq: 507 dead (that we know of at this point) in less than a year.

[LeahMira]

89. More have died in Iraq...

... than died in a comparable time in Vietnam. Given that the administration plans an unending war that will continue past many of our lifetimes, I'd think it would be easy enough to project how many soldiers will die in this war. I wonder how many lives the GOP-ites think it's appropriate to sacrifice for American "safety." How many of us will be left standing at the end of all this fighting and what sort of nation will we have then?

[hot2trot]

94. One dead would be too many

.

[calimary]

95. I hope they have the guts to say that to even just one grieving family.

BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope this comes back to bite them, BIGTIME. Karma's a bitch. May theirs be the bitchiest.