I would think that any civilian death in wars today was unavoidable, but taking up where the dictator left off makes absolutely no sense to me. How many Iraqis do you think are counting their blessings right now at having been "saved" by the US? There is something terribly wrong with a war that kills so many of the people it was supposed to save. And are they keeping civilian death tallies yet?
I think ultimately the increased media presence in wars has turned alot of opinion. Ignore for one second the justification of any war for the sake of this argument... WWI and II, The only media presence in those wars were by journalists who nine times out of ten stood behind the front lines and watched the troops go over the trenches. Stories of huge battles taking place, Brilliant victories etc etc.. without the actual images being seen by the general public. Many veterans have turned around and said that war was horrible but the public have never seen this. The whole idea of war being a grand affair where two (or more) countries settle their problems honourably. Vietnam through to present. The introduction of Television has seen increased covering of conflict. However the difference between now and previous wars is that images are broadcast to the public. People now see the horrific scenes that the soldiers endure and war no longer seems as honourable. Take for example the video of US forces bombing a village in Vietnam with napalm, shortly after a little girl who was completely naked (Clothes burnt off) was seen running down the road towards US troops. Images like that hurt anyone with a heart. Soldiers too... That (among with other images) make people realise war is horrible and should be avoided at all cost. I know there are many other factors involved, but it is possible the reason we debate war these days is because we see what the effects are... Its no longer a grand affair in civilian eyes. Despite what people think, this is nothing new to war (i'm not justifying it, i still think its wrong), its happened since man put sharp bits of rock on the end of sticks to hurt one another. I just think ultimately if people weren't to see images like this then the world wouldn't have a problem. Like i mentioned, the media has influenced alot of people when it comes to military conflict
If a man is holding someone hostage, there occasionally comes a time when the proper thing to do is shoot through the hostage.
G. F. Schleebenhorst: Thanks i was trying to find that website but gave up cause i had to finish some admin work for my troops. I guess the fact that iraqbodycount is a dead give away, lol.. I've just bookmarked it
It is intresting that I find the civilian causalities that cannot be directly attributed to the military are still added to the casualties numbers of the military, even though they were caused by terrorist action, so it becomes impossable to get a clear picture of who is causing the casualty. 2005 Parliamentary Answers concerning the issue of Iraqi casualties "Casualties of car bombs and other clearly identifiable terrorist attacks are recorded as being caused. by terrorist incidents. All other casualties are ... http://www.countthecasualties.org.uk/docs/PQs.pdf Mr. Mullin: The Iraqi Ministry of Health released a statement on 28 January. It stated that records from some 180 hospitals show that: "The numbers of casualties for the six months to the end of December are as follows: Terrorist incidents: 1,233 killed; 4,115 injured Military action: 2,041 killed; 8,542 injured Casualties of car bombs and other clearly identifiable terrorist attacks are recorded as being caused by terrorist incidents. All other casualties are recorded as military action. The casualties may include insurgents, civilians, and Iraqi police, who are treated in Ministry of Health hospitals. The casualties may have been killed or injured by terrorist or coalition forces. Coalition forces include Iraqi police, Iraqi security forces, and the multi-national forces".
Thanks Buffalo for clearing that up. I'm going to stop using Yahoo search and start using whatever your using cause i can't find jack shit with it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Its very true that a large proportion of the Civilian deaths in Iraq occur due to terrorist activity. Now i know the typical argument back to this would be along the lines of "Oh but if the US weren't there then there won't be any casualties". This could be true, However as opposed to 500,000 civilian deaths due to saddamn starving his people? I think its a lesser of two evils for those people. For me, glad to be rid of the bastard. Its interesting to note a large amount of the terrorist bombings that recently have occurred in Iraq, aren't towards Coalition forces. They are a direct attack on the nations people and its government (This government mind you was democratically elected by the people so don't give me the whole puppet regime thing). Therefore following that logic, one can conclude that a large amount of civilian deaths in Iraq are due to people (mainly Sunni's and Al Qaida) not happy with the government. I think civilian deaths are unavoidable, tragic but unavoidable...
bookmark this link: http://www.google.com/firefox?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official msn search: http://search.msn.com/?FORM=HPRE
As opposed to a non US friendly party? In a country that peacekeeping operations are being conducted the last thing you would want is a non-US friendly party in charge. But actually the people of Iraq were given a choice between Sunni's and Shia's, Shia's won, not surprisingly. Sunni's are pissed off because they've lost their power. Like i said, the terrorist attacks are more aimed at the government and iraqi people not US forces. When will people realise this?
Bullshit like any democaracy there were several parties, sure the dominant ones were both US friendly but this is a reflection of the current Iraqi state of mind. Most of them support what we did and are doing. They just aren't as much fun to put on the news becuase they aren't bitching.
The current Iraqi state of mind? Are you kidding? That's reasonable, but bearing that in mind you can't then go on and call them free elections.
I never said that they weren't free elections I was simply stating that thank god it is a US friendly party... TW Scott: This is true, i mean if any democracy works then the public vote for what they want. In this case the two major parties were Shia, or Sunni, both who approve of the US. I've argued this about the current US administration being a reflection of the majority of the US (when it was voted in). Therefore you can't claim anything other than the current Iraqi administration is a reflection of the majority of Iraqi's (once again when it was voted in). Sure things might change between now and then, but a majority of Iraqi's believe in their US friendly parties. Mind you though the US is a good ally to have when you live next door to Iran. But thats another pot of tea
Absolutely. Sometimes you have to make a sacrifice. And that is not collateral damage because it is calculated and deliberate.
Is torturing someone excessive force? If in theory if the use of torture until death in public displays to fight crime was proven to lower crime rates would that constitute as sufficient use of force?
there is NO chance in hell that a non-friendly party was going to be allowed. this is one reason why i am so cynical on the situation there...aside from the fact that the u.s. shouldnt be there in the first place.
No we didn't. US bombers targeted the railyards at Dresden, and similar targets in other German cities. The actual burning of German cities was a UK affair. Why would we apologize for British acts? We aren't British.
