100,000 Iraqi Civilians have died in current war

[richlevy]

Well, now the ***ts hit the fan. Some 6th grade schoolchildren wrote to a soldier. While many of the letters were predictably patriotic, some questioned the war.

One girl wrote that she believes Jacobs is "being forced to kill innocent people" and challenged him to name an Iraqi terrorist, concluding, "I know I can't."

Another girl wrote, "I strongly feel this war is pointless," while a classmate predicted that because Bush was re-elected, "only 50 or 100 [soldiers] will survive."

A boy accused soldiers of "destroying holy places like mosques."

Not that I agree with all of the sentiments here, but it sounds like some kids do not want to play sheep and may be engaged in independent thinking. I'll have to remember this reaction whenever conservatives complain about conservatives speech being suppressed on campus. Apparently, some suppression is ok with Fox.

BTW, technically the US has targeted mosques, although it does so only in cases where soldiers come under fire or it suspects the mosque is housing weapons.

"I want to think these letters were coached by the teacher or the parents of these children," Jacobs said in an interview from Camp Casey, Korea.

"It boggles my mind that children could think this stuff."

Damn that free speech. Damn.

[Undertoad]

They are allowed to be just as wrong as you are Rich.

Of course, they will have to work at it.

[Undertoad]

A conservative blogger notes how even though it's horseshit, the 100,000 figure is used routinely as if it were credible.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

A conservative blogger notes how even though it's horseshit, the 100,000 figure is used routinely as if it were credible.

Clearly the Lancet is wrong because Rush Limbaugh said so. I wonder if he said it before or after using more drugs.

[Undertoad]

The UN weighs in with their number.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...610143,00.html

The survey for the UN Development Programme, entitled Iraq Living Conditions Survey 2004, questioned more than 21,600 households this time last year. Its findings, released by the Ministry of Planning yesterday, could finally resolve the debate over how many Iraqis were killed in the war that overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein in April 2003.

The 370-page report said that it was 95 per cent confident that the toll during the war and the first year of occupation was 24,000, but could have been between 18,000 and 29,000. About 12 per cent of those were under 18.

The figure is far lower than the 98,000 deaths estimated in The Lancet last October, which said that it had interviewed nearly 1,000 households. But it is far higher than other figures.

[lookout123]

can we just bring our folks home, nuke the joint, and quit debating how many people have died?

seriously, it could help a lot of people.
-The Dems could point and scream and guarantee themselves the next couple of elections.

-The international community could have real justification for their Anti-America sentiment.

-The Republicans would get crucified in the media, but then they can revive their martyr act, and give the clean up and reconstruction contracts to their friends.

-The US military members would be happy to be home with their families with fewer bullets flying.

-The UN would probably pull out of NY - do i have to explain the benefit there?

-A lot of future TNT vest wearing freaks would be out of commission, and other groups might just realize we are crazy enough to do the same thing to them.

-A few million innocent Iraqis dead... ok, i don't see any possible upside here, but there is a cost for every positive, right?

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by lookout123

The UN would probably pull out of NY - do i have to explain the benefit there?

I'd like to hear the benefits of such a move.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by sycamore

I'd like to hear the benefits of such a move.

as most of that post was - so to was this statement - mostly sarcastic.

but if the UN were to pull out.

A) prime real estate opens up -not just the UN building but all of the housing, etc.
B) diplomats who are above the law would be gone
C) fewer limp dicks standing on our soil ridiculing the US for no other reason than they can.
D) it would be fun to see where they land and gauge the reaction of their new hosts over the next 20 years.

[elSicomoro]

Originally Posted by lookout123

diplomats who are above the law would be gone

Many would be gone, but there would still be plenty of them on Mass. Ave. NW in DC.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

can we just bring our folks home, nuke the joint, and quit debating how many people have died?

Bases in Iraq are necessary for the invasion of Iran. There is no real exit strategy nor any reason to have an exit strategy. The long term intent is to force democracy on the 'axis of evil'. An exit strategy for Iraqi - ie 'nuke the joint' - would only undermine America's new foreign policy of unilateral invasions.

The new Domino Theory. If we attack them over there, then they will not bother to attack Americans over here. Better to make enemies in Iraq since the whole world hates Americans anyway.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The UN weighs in with their number.

According to those UN numbers, we are killing Iraqi civilians at about the same rate per year that Saddam was. But clearly that is better because Americans are more moral about causing civilian deaths.

After all, we did not intend to kill all those people. Therefore it is moral. We did not intend to create the insurgency when we disbanded the army and police. Therefore all this violence is not America's fault.

Question remains: how many more will die if Iraq breaks down into civil war? History teaches that American occupation (complete with a puppet government) will be required for up to 10 years. No problem. America wants to be the world's policeman. The current Iraqi government can only exist in Green Zones protected by the US military. Why is their own country so dangerous even for their own government? Iraq has never been a more dangerous place - thanks to America.

Those who do die will die for moral reasons. The Iraqi death rate is either same as or higher than during Saddam's reign depending on the source. We call this "Mission Accomplished" - or "Good Morning Vietnam". Same difference. They are only gooks.

[mrnoodle]

I sometimes wonder if there are that many innocent Iraqis. They blow most of em up themselves before they reach puberty.

[lookout123]

most of them are just as innocent as we are. interpret that as you see fit.

they are trying to live their lives, raise their kids, not annoy the wife too much, maybe hang out with friends when they get a chance. most of them have never known a time when their country wasn't being torn apart by some sort of turmoil. their hot buttons and sensitivities will be different than ours, but for the most part they are no different than we are.

we can judge them for not doing more to stop the suicide bombers and terrorists but everything is relative (insert another thread here). when is the last time you (or I) intervened A) when you knew of a man abusing his wife, B) the neighbor's kid stealing something, C) the guy who sold weed to the school kids, D) the coworker who proudly cheats on his taxes?
all of these things are illegal or immoral, why didn't you (I) step in and stop it? because it wasn't worth my time and effort? I don't want to get involved? No good deed goes unpunished? I've got enough to worry about in my own family?

I know my examples of crimes aren't even remotely close to the hideous nature of suicide bombing, but how many Iraqi's would even consider these examples as problems? their problems consist of long term rule under a tyrant who pulled people off of streets to rape them, kill them, disappear them. their beloved former leader gassed his enemies - even those within his own borders. they've lived in a form of poverty that nobody on this board has experienced. injustice, violence, death, destruction, retaliation are the mainstays of their lives. the suicide bombers are just more of the same - just a different target this year.

they are not going to stand up and police themselves until they know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the new government is relatively stable, relatively just, reasonably assured of winning the conflict, and that the suicide bombers and their supporters will not rise to power. to put their necks on the line without some of those concerns put to rest is akin to poking a hornets nest to hear the buzz - just not worth it.

that doesn't mean i don't get furious at them for not doing something. but i've been in there culture. the "outrages" are different, but human nature in relation to the "outrages" is the same there as it is here.

[Undertoad]

Another number noted:

Iraq Puts Civilian Toll at 12,000 (wapo via yahoo)

Violence in the course of the 18-month-long insurgency has claimed the lives of 12,000 Iraqis, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr said Thursday, giving the first official count for the largest category of victims of bombings, ambushes and other increasingly deadly attacks.
...
Interior Ministry statistics showed 12,000 civilians killed by insurgents in the last year and a half, Jabr said. The figure breaks down to an average of more than 20 civilians killed by bombings and other attacks each day. Authorities estimate that more than 10,500 of the victims were Shiite Muslims, based on the locations of the deaths, Jabr said.

[Happy Monkey]

"by insurgents"