A part of me says yes out of moral obligation to the Iraqis who didn't ask for the occupation. Another part of me says no because I want us to spend as little of our dollars in Iraq as possible (ideally spending zero). 1. Are we talking only about civilian causalities/injuries? 2. If so, how do you confirm if someone was a civilian or an active insurgent?
Oh hell no. Why should the USA pay Iraqis for terrorists killing them? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! US troops killed VERY few innocent people. Most were killed by terrorists.
sandy, what's the difference between a terrorist and an insurgent? I believe we ARE paying insurgents now, ableit to not kill each other, and us. 10 bucks a day.
so in the end all they want is more of that american greens. and for a moment i actually thought their aims were pure.
The US could use the money stolen from the Iraqi oil funds, retrieved from the contractors and offshore accounts and spoils of executive compensation packages the same way drug-bought assets are seized. Since they are often outside the US judicial system, simple interrogation techniques would provide their nature and locations, and limited employment of US Special Forces would be sufficient in ther acquisition. If it gave that money back voluntarily, as "compensation for innocents killed", etc, it could get some better PR out of it, maybe. And if compensation were restricted to children killed by US weaponry wielded by US personnel, strictly verified, there would be a manageable number - maybe only a few thousand, even counting fetuses in pregnant women shot at checkpoints. Unlikely, I know. The payment of reparations to the Afghans, by both the US and Russia, is first in line, anyway.
Of course they should be compensated. Their lives have been completely fucked up through no fault of their own. The US is responsible, so they should pay for the damage they caused. I can't even wrap my mind around how anyone can say they do not deserve compensation. Highly illogical. I can't believe you just called victims of this magnitude greedy. Their desire for compensation is hardly the frivolous type of lawsuit you see over hot coffee at McDonalds. They've been injured, had family killed, and had their lives ruined. Some have been tortured in detention centers.
I figure that they are already being compensated. Billions upon billions are going into repairing their infrastructure and otherwise supporting the nation. Any theoretical debt will be as paid off as our debt to Japan after WWII was.
We already do, but only in the presence of incontrovertible evidence that the deaths were wrongful, and the result of coalition actions. We recompense for property damage, too, with similar qualifications. Unfortunately those requirements can make it rather difficult to figure out what happened, especially in backwater areas of the country where local record keeping is nearly nonexistent. I'm not sure why anybody would question why this is a good idea, or the right thing to do.
I don't question whether it is a good idea. I say it's a poor idea and we should not do it. There are sadly, casualties in every war. It is terrible but a truism. In wars the innocent as well as the guilty die. The majority of the people being killed in Iraq are being killed by fellow Iraqis, not by American or allied troops. When Sunnis kill Shia or Shia kill Sunnis or when either group kills Christians it is not our obligation, either legal or moral to pay the victims families.
This is not a war. It is an occupation. In an occupation, the innocent should not die. Even during a war, it depends on how the innocent were killed, no? And doesn't an 8 or 10 to 1 innocent/combatant kill ratio give pause for thought, in a war of smart bombs and small scale action ? Be that as it may, retrieving the money stolen from the Iraqi oil funds over the past few years from the US associates who have received it, and hadning it out to any Iraqis who lost children to specifically American weaponry wielded by Americans, seems alike a harmless and possibly greatly beneficial PR exercise. Any problem with that ?
Pretty much any instance where a civilian is harmed by coalition actions entitles them or their survivors to compensation, if evidence exists to prove it. Another benefit to compensation is that, in Islamic culture, once payment (any payment) is received, no grudge can be held. Iraqis call it "blood money" but not with a negative connotation. The quicker victims are recompensed, the less time they can hold a grudge, and the less likely the chance becomes that they will begin to turn their ire against the coalition and Iraqi government. There are pragmatic reasons why this is a good idea, to accompany the moral ones.
If it is merely an occupation and not an ongoing war on low simmer there should be no casualties. During an occupation people should not kill the occupiers. If they do or attempt to they just might wind up being killed themselves. The vast majority of those being killed are no victims of occupying forces but of their neighbors, Muslims of different sects, Arab Muslims killing Kurds, Christians, Assyrians, etc. We owe no compensation to families of people killed by their neighbors.
When are you going to see things as they really are instead of only through your own slanted ways? A war happened, many were killed and injured so why should compensation be applied? During any recent war, Vietnam or Kuwait there never was compensation was there? So why do you think that now there should be? I just don't see your point of view on this matter whatsoever. Is Iraq going to compensate the American troops who died when their economy is improved, I'd think not.
Cosmoctraveler, in that you are wrong, in Vietnam we paid Michelin Rubber for every rubber tree, that was blown up, we paid for every water buffalo that ended up dead, we paid for every chicken that got run over crossing the road, we paid for those killed in the cross fire, I don't know about Kuwait, but I would venture it was the same way. In Vietnam the cost or running over a chicken , was what the chicken cost, plus all the eggs that chicken would laid for a year, plus for all the chicken that would have hatched from those eggs, plus all the eggs those chickens would have laid. When you ran over a chicken in Vietnam the government paid $650.00, every time a convoy was sighted, the Vietnamese would chase their chickens into the road.
