How does 3000 compare to 40,000?Originally Posted by WhiteWidow
This is a cool site that's been tracking the number of civilian deaths since the US got involved in Iraq...
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
WWTKD?
How does 3000 compare to 40,000?
This is a cool site that's been tracking the number of civilian deaths since the US got involved in Iraq...
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
I HATE MOOCHERS !!!
**thread hijack on**
You guys hear about the Tsunami that just hit Indonesia.... CNN has reported that Bush was behind it
**thread hijack off**
I'm not big on doing reviews, tobacco doesn't taste like "cocoa" or "nutty" or "mocha" to me, it tastes like freakin' TOBACCO. I know what I like and I really don't care what other people think of other cigars. I've never read a review and said to myself "Wow, that sounds like a cigar I'd like to try!"
I HATE MOOCHERS !!!
Who gives a shit.........
I'm not big on doing reviews, tobacco doesn't taste like "cocoa" or "nutty" or "mocha" to me, it tastes like freakin' TOBACCO. I know what I like and I really don't care what other people think of other cigars. I've never read a review and said to myself "Wow, that sounds like a cigar I'd like to try!"
WWTKD?
We pee on ourselves when 3000 of our own civilians are killed, but it's okay to kill 40,000 of someone else's civilians?
Has a 5" Member
Everyone should read the book "Refined by Fire" by Brian and Mel Birdwell. If you can read that and still give a shit a about some nutcase with a diaper on his head, I would be truly impressed.
Even if that website were accurate or mentioned any reasons why it should be credible, I probably wouldn't care. At least we conduct precision military strikes on military targets, drop food and supplies to civilians, and even set our POW's up in a nice prison cell with three squares a day. Name another country in the history of warfare that has done anything like that. I guess maybe the Nazis making my grandpa march with a broken leg and no food or electricity for miles comes pretty close.
Nobody wants to be in a war - it sucks, people die, we all know that. But if we sit here on our ass, its only a matter of time before the enemy - which lacks any kind of logical thought or reasoning - is on our own doorstep. Look at France in WWII - they ignore the obivous psychopath next door, feel that they can sit on their ass all day, and all of a sudden you are occupied, and expect the rest of the world to bail you out. Is that what we're supposed to do?
I don't like the idea of people dying more than anyone else, but they way I see it, when you have all these weirdos running around you have to stop them, or at least try. I have a piece of the rubble from the Pentagon sitting here on my desk, and looking at that, its hard for me to justify taking no action. Do I know exactly what the correct action is? Hell no. Do we need to do more than nothing? Yes.
Last edited by WhiteWidow; 07-18-2006 at 10:37 AM.
End of line.
WWTKD?
Hahaha, click on View Database. It lists each and every report and its source. Running down the most recent few, it lists CNN, AFP, AP, Reuters, and Washington Post. If those aren't accurate sources, I'm not sure what is.
They actually used to do a much better job, listing what each news outlet was reporting for each incident. If you didn't think our news sources were craptacular before, this would have convinced you. The US news outlets were routinely lower than the BBC or Al-Jazeera numbers.
Civilians die in war and that sucks. But when your war is based on falsified intelligence and you target civilian areas under false pretenses, that's pretty borderline terrorism. When Kuwaitis were killed in Hussein's invasion, we called it atrocities. When we bomb a market, it's called "collateral damage". It's all a matter of perspective.
Senior Member
If they weren't killed directly by us, I don't see why we should be held accountable. By that logic the parents of the suicide bombers are also responsible for the deaths because they conceived the killer. How many of these deaths were still occurring before the war even started?
I'm not saying I think the war in Iraq was the greatest idea ever. I'm saying that blaming the US for every violent death in Iraq now that we're there is bullshit.
"some people are like slinkies, they're not really good for anything but they can bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." –Unknown
"He did for bullshit what Stonehenge did for rocks." -Cecil Adams
WWTKD?
Yeah, I wish they'd separate out direct US deaths vs. terror attacks.
I do know that it was up around 4000 civilian deaths before the ground campaign started. I would think the majority of the deaths are directly caused by US acts, but that's just based on finger counting (5 people here and 20 there).
I can see where they're going with including the suicide bombings as an indirect result of US activity, but like you said, there's only so much blame you can place on the US for that. I mean, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from day 1, but I didn't imagine the outcome would be al Qaeda suicide bombing the hell out of it.
Always a good decision
I really really didn't want to get involved in this, but god damnit...
1. Can you possibly imagine any terrorist organization taking the absurd steps that we have to preserve civilian life??? As afore mentioned, we precision strike, drop supplies, and treat POWs with a civility above and beyond any other country we engage.
2. I don't buy the stats on that site for anything. Is there any differentiation between military casualties, civilians killed by insurgents, or civilians killed by their own countrymen? Also, when you have a war that lasts for three years and you can (or at least attempt) to catalogue every Iraqi death that means that we are doing one hell of a job preserving life. Lastly, if you could actually count the civilian deaths caused by the US invasion you should try comparing that to the number of civilians that would have been killed by Sadam's dictatorship.
3. We as a country are losing our evolutionary edge. We see a country that threatens our citizens, security, and way of life and we SHOULD bomb them until they aren't a threat anymore. We live, those who oppose die, that's how the terrorists operate. If they had weapons and military power like we do the US would be a patch of radioactive dirt and we'd all be dead.
4. How you can compare Bush to the psychos running nations like Iran, Iraq (formerly), N. Korea, Lebanon, Afghanistan (formerly), etc.; you are out of your mind. You might not like his politics, but give me a break.
I hate arguing with liberals b/c they believe that ranting and raving are substitutes for facts and logic. You show me a Democrat candidate that has a PLAN for withdrawal from Iraq (pulling everyone out after a 12 month deadline is not a plan) and I will actually consider for voting for one. A platform that says "I am not Bush so vote for me" is the reason that Kerry had the worst popular vote % since before the Reagan era.
Reply as you please, but don’t expect a reply. Dueling with the libs on this board is like pounding your head against a brick wall. Actually, when I do pound my head against the wall I can actually see the wall’s point of view.
When nothing is certain everything is possible.
Incognito
Even if these "facts" were 100% correct, take a look at everything they count. These are all murders that have happened in Iraq. NOT deaths caused directly by Coalition Forces. The United States seems to be far more secure on the streets and just for 2003 and 2004 there were 32,719 homicides in the United States.
No matter what anyone says, neither US nor any other country are truly going to influence what happens in this area of the Middle East. In this part of the world, Muslims are born hating Jews and the state of Israel. And the same is bred into the Jews to hate the Muslims. No treaties or agreements are going to fix the situation. The only way for there to be true stabilization without a war is if Isreal were to give up all of her land completely and dissolve itself. However, Israel has the right to exist. It is their land. And no, I'm not referencing that to the old Isreal from biblical times, I am talking the recent 60's Israel. They took the land and now it is theirs. If this were to have happened as a Muslim state and not a Jewish state, there would have been no public outcry. There would not be hundreds and hundreds of "martyrs" every year to push and take back the motherland.
Isreal is definitely responding harshly to the kidnappings of its soldiers. But what if they hadn't responded like they are now? That would mean they would have to learn to accept their soldiers being kidnapped as a normal occurance. And honestly, if I were in the soldier's position, I would want my country to respond as Israel has.
Last edited by toasty; 07-27-2006 at 03:58 PM.
"I smoke in moderation. Only one cigar at a time."
-- Mark Twain
WWTKD?
In a few more posts you'll see me saying I wish they had included only civilian deaths directly attributed to "Coalition" (well, mostly US) attacks.
I do know that it eclipsed the 3000 mark before the occupation (I want to say it was before the ground campaign started, but I'm not certain).
I can see their point in indirectly blaming the occupation for things like suicide bombings, but it's much more important to see directly attributable deaths. Indirectly attributable deaths are a nice sidebar or footnote, but should not be the focus...
(Actually, I don't think I read the details screen before posting the first time; I stopped watching that page after the number went over 3000; at that point I don't think we had even started a ground campaign; yes, I realize how many semicolons I used in this sentence)
Incognito
They are also counting all Iraqi deaths as civilian deaths also though. Insurgent, Soldier and Child are all tallied the same way. Yes I know that the number of "insurgent deaths" will be exaggerated on the administration side, but of course they are going to be completely lowballed on the other side as well.In a few more posts you'll see me saying I wish they had included only civilian deaths directly attributed to "Coalition" (well, mostly US) attacks.
I do know that it eclipsed the 3000 mark before the occupation (I want to say it was before the ground campaign started, but I'm not certain).
I can see their point in indirectly blaming the occupation for things like suicide bombings, but it's much more important to see directly attributable deaths. Indirectly attributable deaths are a nice sidebar or footnote, but should not be the focus...
(Actually, I don't think I read the details screen before posting the first time; I stopped watching that page after the number went over 3000; at that point I don't think we had even started a ground campaign; yes, I realize how many semicolons I used in this sentence)
"I smoke in moderation. Only one cigar at a time."
-- Mark Twain
WWTKD?
That's actually one of the things I liked about this site (at least initially, when it was all civilian kills). They take in reports from multiple sources and use the highest and lowest. Despite the "liberal" label I've probably earned, I want to know the most accurate news. News that is weighted on either side of an issue is just useless.
Incognito
And I the same.
"I smoke in moderation. Only one cigar at a time."
-- Mark Twain
Back Again
Hey SuperChuck...You may be a liberal but I respect you. You and I had a debate awhile back and together we kept it civil. It's all in how you express yourself.
WWTKD?
No fair editing posts while I'm replying...
That's largely a generalization. Your average guy on the street wants to make a decent living, feed his family, raise his kids. It's the leaders and radicals you have to look out for. It's a little like saying everyone south of the Mason-Dixon is racist and in the KKK. That's really a minority, but they're loud.
Given the history of war in the region, it's an understandable hatred. There's been so much back and forth between Israel and other nations. Just in this little conflict in Lebanon, the Lebanese hate the Israelis for bombing the crap out of them, and the Israelis are mad at the Lebanese and Hezbollah for kidnapping their soldiers (and therefore feel justified in attacking Lebanon), and Hezbollah (and most Lebanese at the time) felt justified in kidnapping those soldiers because the Israelis have some of their soldiers. I'm sure it goes further back, too.
Weel, the WWII Allies kind of had something to do with the creation of Israel...However, Israel has the right to exist. It is their land. And no, I'm not referencing that to the old Isreal from biblical times, I am talking the recent 60's Israel. They took the land and now it is theirs.
Senior Member
[QUOTE=SuperChuck]No fair editing posts while I'm replying...
That's largely a generalization. Your average guy on the street wants to make a decent living, feed his family, raise his kids. It's the leaders and radicals you have to look out for. It's a little like saying everyone south of the Mason-Dixon is racist and in the KKK. That's really a minority, but they're loud...
QUOTE]
I understand what you are saying, but I see it differently. Hatred of different races and religions is rampant in the middle east. Children are educated at home and in schools to hate other cultures even in their own country because they are not of the "God chosen" religion or ethnicity. Our culture downplays religion when it comes to social interaction with others, but in the middle east religion is the driving force of everything they do. And war is not a concept that has never been experienced in their homeland, it is something that has always been a part of their current life or recent history. I think that's what we sometimes fail to understand. I don't believe we can put ourselves in the average Joe's shoes, nor can we expect that they are thinking the same way we are. Hatred of other cultures and races is a normal part of their everyday life, much as the natural (at the time) hatred and resentment that existed between blacks and whites in this country during reconstruction.
Has a 5" Member
The reason they hate everyone so much is what in psychology is a called a "reaction complex." Basically, since everything over there is so crappy, they project the blame for their situation on someone else. The west "stole" our riches from them. Throughout history, Jews have usually been smarter and more successful than other cultures, starting banks, businesses, etc., as a result this jealousy has cause many groups, not just Muslims, to hate them.
End of line.
Are You Threatening Me?
That, quite possibly, is the most racist thing I've seen posted just about anywhere.
Has a 5" Member
Its not racist. People have been jealous of Jews throughout recorded history as a result of their many accomplishments, perfecting a banking system 2,000 years ago just being one of them.
End of line.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
BOHICA
Bookmarks