What I want to know is how many US or coalition soldiers were killed by Iraqis and how many died from friendly fire? :bugeye: It doesn't matter how smart the bomb is when a dumb human is pressing the buttons :bugeye:
Classified That information is classified. As well as the United States' estimate of how many civilians Coalition troops actually killed. :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Civilian casualties: 3,240 Coalition military casualties: 230. As for what's FF and what's not, that's hard to say and like tiassa said is classified and will more than likely be for some time. Iraqi military casualties: will only be estimated, never known precisely.
Reported Civilian Deaths: Minimum:5567 Maximum:7240 http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ I'd imagine there are quite a few more unreported ones.
Incorrect. The UN (and UNICEF and Medact and unoffically from UK military sources) estimates were from 10 to 500 thousand casualties, including both direct civilian and military casualties of the war and casualties which were caused by the war but not a direct result of military action (i.e. patients who died in hospital because of power and water failures caused by the war, but who weren't shot). Those estimates were for a timeframe of six to twelve months after the end of the war. Since the war has not yet ended offically, and it hasn't been six to twelve months from the end of "major combat operations" ( Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ), those estimates cannot yet be said to be inaccurate, unless of course, you don't care about being wrong.
By all accounts we did pretty good at keeping casualties on both sides down. Has anybody ever taken such a sizeable piece of land by force and lost fewer troops while killing fewer civilians?
Actually it was (according to a WHO report) up to 500,000, like Sparks said. The basis was that Iraq would draw the coalition into a protracted ground campaign lasting months, during which Iraq's already dilapidated domestic infrastructure would collapse, leading to massive civilian deaths. Additionally, many would be killed by coalition combat action. I don't know what's more hilarious. Their supposition that the Iraqi military could actually resist a US/UK offensive, or that coalition strikes would incur such odious amounts of collateral damage. It's as though we were going to carpet bomb Baghdad with thermobaric bombs.
Who knows what would have happend if we hadn't reached a deal to take Baghdad. Those numbers are a bit high though.
sparks: my understanding was that it was predicted that 50,000 civilians will die from direct result of bombings / shoot outs. the US did a pretty good job with their precision bombs....although 1 bomb landed in turkey, 1 landed in iran, and a bunch landed in syria. 1 hit a syrian bus carrying "passengers" to iraq. they were irregulars trying to join the saddam forces. liberal monkeys, as Stokes pointed out, tried to propagate that the US will carpet bomb iraq the same way they did germany 60 years ago. these ppl are so funny.
Liberals? You mean those liberals who developed the "shock and awe" strategy? You'll notice that, in the end, it was Western reporters who were shocked and awed. "This is so shocking, Peter ... it's absolutely awesome ...." And while I am happy at a lower civilian casualty count than expected, two points do not escape me: - Civilian casualties are unacceptable, period. This is why war is a bad idea. - Considering that we stopped without finding the WMD's or bringing Hussein to justice, the civilian toll is, indeed, lower for the war proper than expected. Imagine what it would be if the war continued until we finished our business. Imagine what it will be if the reconstruction continues to fall apart. So perhaps the conservative rapists, thieves, and murderers propagating this whole Iraqi adventure ought not be trusted? Some of us were never stupid enough to trust them in the first place. What's your excuse? :m:, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Liberals? I'd normally be inclined to believe that this is intentional hyperbole. However, you sound quite serious. So, you do realize that it is utterly impossible to avoid collateral damage, right? Unless you know something that I don't, in which case, could you enlighten me? I agree that war of any form is always a human tragedy but come on, you aren't being realistic at all. Explain how continued overt combat action would have resulted in the capture of Saddam and uncovery of WMDs, when we had already covered the entire country. Also, how the reconstruction effort is "failing" now.
Re: Re: Liberals? Afganistan: failed. http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=5a9a7c6ecea50382e74bdf3f81440481 http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EF21Ag01.html Iraq: failing. http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,982549,00.html http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0620/p25s04-woiq.html See also related thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24123
Re: Re: Re: Liberals? First, Afghanistan is simply a red herring. The first of those links is also irrelevant, because it's Gen. Clark's comments about linking Iraq to 9/11. The third is only slightly relevant, because it addresses Iraqi sentiment toward the American presence, which does not necessarily indicate failure of reconstruction efforts. All that established, you really should have only linked to the article from The Observer, because it is the most telling. However, problems do not constitute a failure or an impending one. I seem to recall some making assertations that the military advance through Iraq was failed a few months ago, and that entering Baghdad would be a bloodbath, for example. Making rather grandiose predictions with poor or no supporting evidence is not a wise practice. "Failing" is an overstatement, and General Nash himself, while quite critical of the progress thus far (and with good reason, I might add), does not go as far to say that it is failing in any sense of the word.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberals? Red Herring? I think not. Iraqi war and Afghanistan war are both "War on Terror" touted by the pResident. The situation over in Afghanistan is more than relevant to the situation in the region. The links by themselves do not prove much but as they say the sum of the whole is greater than the parts. What reconstruction success do you speak of? While our troops were occupying the cities, much of schools libraries cultural items of significance were looted.... and some by westerns. If you speak of reconstruction success of oil and it's steady flow then yes, we have done well. Many civilians died while we were freeing them from the evil grips of a dictator we supported in the past (cross-link: the taliban article). What justice has been given the dead's family? Saddam has not been found...the weapons have not been found. I am not one for speaking for the Iraqi people, but if I were a citizen there I would conclude the US was deceiving everyone in order to gain access to the petrol and it did not care what cultural heritage and history it trampled. I hope, for my country's sake, we either find stockpiles of these weapons or that the CIA is working on fabricating some weapons to plant in iraq.
Don't listen to Stokes he's a wannabe Rumsfeld. He works for the death con5 corp Raytheon! Keep up the good workPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!oh no Ad Hom, he might start to bitch about this) http://www.corporatewatch.org/profi...n/raytheon4.htm Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Unless you know something that I don't, in which case, could you enlighten me? Simple Rums, don't start un-nessecary wars, makes sense doesn't it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I used to be antiwar, but I did entertain the idea of war againest iraq before the war started. Now, I'm absolutely anti-war, and is avid believers that wars are mass destruction with absolutely no value. The Americans have hijacked from the Iraqi people their opportunity to mature as a country and as citizen and to revolt and reform their govement. The Americans have kidnapped from the Iraqis 50 years of lessons. The Iraqi people have been deeply disrespected with this war and the will of another but the Iraqi people have pervailed, and that's a higher price to pay than casualties.
The republican party should now be the most hated political party in the history of America...but the fact that it is not troubles me. Americans are ignorant and we choose to continue be ignorant. Ofcourse it is patriotic to be such. America truly is the great irony. It has the potential to be the city upon the hill...but.... I don't know......open the pod bay doors HAL.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Liberals? Absolutely. We are talking about failure/success of Iraqi reconstruction. Afghanistan is patently irrelevant in every regard. That the Bush admin chose to enshrine both in the embellishing monicker "war on terror" does not mean that the two are related or can be reasonably juxtaposed. Anyway, yes, there have been setbacks and problems in reconstruction. Oil has naturally been a key protected element, as it will become a majority of Iraqi GDP forthwith. However, to claim that setbacks and obstacles constitute an utter failure (or the process of one) is simple conjecture. I agree that this would be nice, but it is not necessary. Anybody who didn't peg the WMD guise as a pretext is very dense indeed.
If you would like we could put Saddam back in power if he is still alive. Would you like that? Obviously you perfer him to us. Please note that we are quickly repairing Iraq's infrastructure.(electricity, water, schools, hospitals) We hardly touched these in the last war. It was Saddam who let them crumble while he built dozens of palaces for himself. Also please note his supporters have been sabotaging our repair efforts and even recently performed a rocket attack against a Baghdad power plant. Oh... they were so much better off with him than us. (note sarcastic tone)
