Iraq: US death toll in war hits 4,000

[faceking]

USA have now suffered bigger loss in Iraq than on 9.11.

9/11 took a couple hours to happen, with the bulk of US deaths coming from civilians.

Iraq took 5 years, with the bulk of US deaths coming from those who signed to serve and expect danger.

Talk about an apples-to-apples comparison. (rollseyes).

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

Ah.... the 180,000+ Kurds Hussein whacked in one year alone... that's peace. Amen.

I wrote "relative" peace. Are you claiming that Iraq is more peaceful now than, say, 8 years ago during Hussein's rule? I won't deny Hussein's genocide or his draconian nature, but George W. Bush is responsible for far more Iraqi civilian deaths than Saddam Hussein.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I wrote "relative" peace. Are you claiming that Iraq is more peaceful now than, say, 8 years ago during Hussein's rule? I won't deny Hussein's genocide or his draconian nature, but George W. Bush is responsible for far more Iraqi civilian deaths than Saddam Hussein.

Certainly true, and many Iraqis will say that their lives, on balance, are infinitely worse since the American invasion.

 

[dong20]

Iraq took 5 years, with the bulk of US deaths coming from those who signed to serve and expect danger.

Yes, joining the armed forces implies acceptance of danger, where is perhaps less relevant but ...

I imagine most who sign up, do so to protect their country. I'm unconvinced that dying in Iraq in a futile (and almost certainly illegal) conflict that has more than likely achieved the reverse, best serves that end. I imagine I'm not alone in that thought.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

9/11 took a couple hours to happen, with the bulk of US deaths coming from civilians.
Iraq took 5 years, with the bulk of US deaths coming from those who signed to serve and expect danger.
Talk about an apples-to-apples comparison. (rollseyes).

A life is a life, faceking.
And in that sense, it is very much an apples-to-apples comparison.
(Though the real point is that the invasion of Iraq has not increased U.S. security, but probably reduced it; has set back progressive political developments in the Middle East; and cost the Iraqis themselves many, many tens of thousands of lives, most of them people who were apolitical and not particularly asking for misguided help from the American war machine.)

 

[maestro071]

What about the number of civilians killed in Iraq? According to some estimations it goes from 90'000 to even 700'000 according to some sources. here is one interesting article:QUOTE" And the winner is...by Lily Hamourtziadou 16 Mar 2008 No, let’s start with the losers. The clear and biggest losers of this war are the Iraqis. The 2003 invasion and occupation of their country have brought them the following: terrorpovertyanarchyvulnerabilitycollapseThose that should have been the clear winners of this war, the Iraqis, if anything we were told before the invasion was true, are actually by far the greatest losers. Last week they lost another 247 civilian lives, 14 of which were children’s. The other clear losers are the young men and women, over 4,000 of them, our soldiers, mainly American and British, who have so far lost their lives. Those young men and women who joined their country’s armed forces intending to be brave, to protect, to save, to sacrifice their lives for the good of their nation and its civilians –their parents, children, friends, neighbours. Those men and women have instead died the death of the dishonourable, as they have been sacrificed for a dishonourable cause. They have been used and betrayed by those who would have never sacrificed anything of their own. They have been used and abused by the winners of this war. Who are those winners? George W. Bush and Tony Blair are the obvious winners. Not only do they seem to have escaped any punishment after their lies, deception, crimes against peace and possibly war crimes that continue to this day, but they also managed to get re-elected after invading and destroying another country, and after killing thousands of civilians. As soon as their deception regarding Iraq’s threat was exposed, they both very cleverly redefined the war as an expression of western values: freedom, democracy, equality. And their flattery worked: enough of us believed that we, noble, liberal, civilised and moral westerners were on a wonderful mission (with our leader being the courageous moral driving force) to save an oppressed population living in fear and crying out for help. Our help. We believed, because we wanted to believe, in our intrinsic goodness and in the good intentions of our leaders. Through us, their victory was won, and through us they continue to be victorious. The other winners are the extremists. Those who kill civilians in Iraq on a daily basis. Those who torture and shoot women who wear no headscarves, the women who are vain enough to wear make-up, who want to send their daughters to school. Those who blow up people in markets, who shoot innocents outside bakeries, inside schools, as they drive their cars… Those who abduct, torture and murder even children, and leave their bodies scattered in streets, fields, dumps, as though they were rubbish. The fanatics, the murderers, the terrorists, they have established a foothold in Iraq, they have now become what Iraq is famous for. What no country ever wants to be famous for. Anyone who has become rich, even richer, or more powerful as a result of this war is also a winner. American and British firms and companies, ‘the money men’, as Raymond Whitaker and Stephen Foley refer to them (The Independent, 16 March). And we, the British and American public? What have we won? What have we lost? We have actually won nothing, not even our security. And we have lost something too: a little of our self-respect. A little of our conviction in our virtue, in our values and in our role as the defenders of all that is good and fair."UNQUOTE

 

[DC_DEEP]

Yes, joining the armed forces implies acceptance of danger, where is perhaps less relevant but ...

I imagine most who sign up, do so to protect their country. I'm unconvinced that dying in Iraq in a futile (and almost certainly illegal) conflict that has more than likely achieved the reverse, best serves that end. I imagine I'm not alone in that thought.

Absolutely you are NOT alone in that thought, dong. Yes, I did enlist. Yes, I did understand that there could be danger. Yes, I did understand that I could die. But I most certainly did NOT enlist as a death wish, with the intent of being sent to slaughter to fight for something I didn't believe in, in a country where my government's presence was not wanted.

There's a huge difference between being willing to die to protect my country, and being willing to die for oil interests, or to settle some family feud for the Bush family. No one has yet to convince me that the conflict in Iraq has anything at all to do with "the war on terror," that my country is any safer since that invasion, or that those billions and billions of dollars were anywhere near well-spent. No one has yet to convince me that it even has anything to do with "making the world safe for democracy," (and I have problems with that kind of manifest-destiny philosophy to begin with.)

When the French citizens got tired of abuse from the monarchy, they fixed it. When the American colonists got tired of abusive colonial rule, they fixed it. If the Iraqi people truly and en masse wanted democracy, they would have had their own revolution. I would have less problem with us intervening in a civil war/popular revolution, than just simply invading a country where we were not invited - by anyone.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

The other clear losers are the young men and women, over 4,000 of them, our soldiers, mainly American and British, who have so far lost their lives. Those young men and women who joined their country’s armed forces intending to be brave, to protect, to save, to sacrifice their lives for the good of their nation and its civilians –their parents, children, friends, neighbours. Those men and women have instead died the death of the dishonourable, as they have been sacrificed for a dishonourable cause. They have been used and betrayed by those who would have never sacrificed anything of their own. They have been used and abused by the winners of this war.

I just saw that video that's all over the net of the U.S. soldier throwing the puppy off the cliff. It was awful to see, but I think that it shows what kind of stress these schmucks are under. Was he a 'psycho', or just a guy who can't deal with the predicament he's in? He's being used to fight a phony war on terror; to line the pockets of the arms suppliers and oil barons in office. That kind of exploitation reminds me of how inhumane institutions can become. I am so glad that there is a two-term limit.

"All I know is that first you've got to get mad." -- Howard Beale, Network.

Who are those winners? George W. Bush and Tony Blair are the obvious winners. Not only do they seem to have escaped any punishment after their lies, deception, crimes against peace and possibly war crimes that continue to this day, but they also managed to get re-elected after invading and destroying another country, and after killing thousands of civilians. As soon as their deception regarding Iraq’s threat was exposed, they both very cleverly redefined the war as an expression of western values: freedom, democracy, equality. And their flattery worked: enough of us believed that we, noble, liberal, civilized and moral westerners were on a wonderful mission (with our leader being the courageous moral driving force) to save an oppressed population living in fear and crying out for help.

You gotta ask yourself, "so many deaths, for what?" I am amazed that Bush has gotten away with this orchestrating this fiasco. There were barely whispers of impeachment, let alone an official inquiry. "Bad intelligence" is not a sufficient excuse for this atrocity. There needs to be some accountability.

"An army of sheep led by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep" -- Arab proverb.

 

[Gonzo3]

:usa:"Lions led by donkeys".........R.I.P.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

As soon as their deception regarding Iraq’s threat was exposed, they both very cleverly redefined the war as an expression of western values: freedom, democracy, equality.

If the frequent redefinitions of the purpose for the invasion and occupation of Iraq were considered clever, well, I disagree. Those ever-shifting redefinitions all seemed pretty crude and opportunistic to me.

But at least in the past the leaders made an attempt to justify the occupation, even if lamely. Its become so stupid now our leaders don't even bother to redefine it. It just is.

 

[frizzle]

Don't really give a fuck why where out there now, we went in for a good reason in my opinion, but all that matters now is the fact our men are fighting and dying and deserves everyones support no matter what.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

easy to say--- you fling the word "support" like a wreath off the fantail...


WHat, EXACTLY constitutes "support"?

I would have to say 'not allowing any more to die' is the only meaningful form of support.

And, BTW, we did not go in for a "good" reason.

A lie is never a good reason to kill, never a good reason to die.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

"Support" them by carrying their coffins off the plane, maybe?

The reasons for this were all a load of rot. The idea of pre-emptive war or justifiable war is nonsense in the least and a war crime in itself at the worst.

 

[PussyWellington]

Absolutely you are NOT alone in that thought, dong. Yes, I did enlist. Yes, I did understand that there could be danger. Yes, I did understand that I could die. But I most certainly did NOT enlist as a death wish, with the intent of being sent to slaughter to fight for something I didn't believe in, in a country where my government's presence was not wanted.

There's a huge difference between being willing to die to protect my country, and being willing to die for oil interests, or to settle some family feud for the Bush family. No one has yet to convince me that the conflict in Iraq has anything at all to do with "the war on terror," that my country is any safer since that invasion, or that those billions and billions of dollars were anywhere near well-spent. No one has yet to convince me that it even has anything to do with "making the world safe for democracy," (and I have problems with that kind of manifest-destiny philosophy to begin with.)

When the French citizens got tired of abuse from the monarchy, they fixed it. When the American colonists got tired of abusive colonial rule, they fixed it. If the Iraqi people truly and en masse wanted democracy, they would have had their own revolution. I would have less problem with us intervening in a civil war/popular revolution, than just simply invading a country where we were not invited - by anyone.

Thank you for writing that.

 

[DC_DEEP]

easy to say--- you fling the word "support" like a wreath off the fantail...

WHat, EXACTLY constitutes "support"?

I would have to say 'not allowing any more to die' is the only meaningful form of support.

"Support" them by carrying their coffins off the plane, maybe?

Excellent, gents. I've been asking for a while, and can't get a coherent answer from any of the Bush/Iraq supporters. They accuse me of "not supporting our troops," but never tell me what they mean by that.

Honestly. Which is more supportive of each individual soldier, saying "I don't want any more to die" or saying "I don't care if any more die or not, as long as no one criticizes the president"?

Thank you for writing that.

My pleasure. Just calling it as I see it.

 

[faceking]

I don't think the situation in Iraq has gone well after the fact, but to paint this 100% failure rate is disingenuous and incorrect.

According to some estimations it goes from 90'000 to even 700'000

I'm very curious as to the 'source' on the latter... 700K???!!!

The clear and biggest losers of this war are the Iraqis. The 2003 invasion and occupation of their country have brought them the following: terrorpovertyanarchyvulnerabilitycollapseThose that should have been the clear winners of this war, the Iraqis, if anything we were told before the invasion was true, are actually by far the greatest losers.

I vehemently disagree.

And I find it compelling that no where in your rhetoric... much less probably ever in your life, do you condemn the terrorists doing these acts against their own ilk. It's the US/coalition's fault that terrorists are killing Iraqi citizens???
Spare me silly.

Those men and women have instead died the death of the dishonourable

Wow. Wow. and Wow. Gall doesn't even get close to that comment.

George W. Bush and Tony Blair are the obvious winners. Not only do they seem to have escaped any punishment after their lies, deception, crimes against peace and possibly war crimes that continue to this day, but they also managed to get re-elected after invading and destroying another country, and after killing thousands of civilians.

Yawn. The whole WMD case was proven correct on their behalf... you just refuse to accept it.
You forgot the Halliburton blabber in this piece, for the record. Amuse me, please... and throw in a 9/11 conspiracy for good measure.

One of the big winners, you conveniently failed to mention in your rant to paint the conflict a 100% failure... is the Kurdish people.

The fanatics, the murderers, the terrorists, they have established a foothold in Iraq, they have now become what Iraq is famous for. What no country ever wants to be famous for.

Actually incorrect, what has been established is Iran is funding/supplying the bulk of the terrorism in Iraq... that is what has come into the clear.

as Raymond Whitaker and Stephen Foley refer to them (The Independent, 16 March).

Ah, The Independent,... talk about subjective and un-biased journalism (sarcasm).

We have actually won nothing, not even our security.

Many believe better the terrorists focus their energies over there, vs. over in the US.

 

[Stretch]

I'm very curious as to the 'source' on the latter... 700K???!!!

Five years after Mr Bush and Tony Blair launched the invasion, no one knows how many Iraqis have died. We do know that more than 2 million have fled abroad. A further 1.5 million have sought safety elsewhere in Iraq. We know that the combined horror of car bombs, suicide attacks, sectarian killing and disproportionate US counter-insurgency tactics and air strikes has produced the worst humanitarian catastrophe in today's world. But the exact death toll remains a mystery. There is no shortage of estimates, but they vary enormously. The Iraqi ministry of health initially tried to keep a count based on morgue records but then stopped releasing figures under pressure from the US-supported government in the green zone. The director of the Baghdad morgue, already under stress because of the mounting horror of his work, was threatened with death on the grounds that by publishing statistics he was causing embarrassment. The families of the bereaved wanted him to tell the truth, but like other professionals he came to the view that he had to flee Iraq.

An independent British research group, the Iraq Body Count, collates all fatality reports in the media where there are two or more sources, as well as figures from hospitals and other official sources. At least four household surveys have been done asking Iraqis to list the family members they have lost. The results have then been extrapolated to Iraq's total population to give a nationwide estimate.
The results range from just under 100,000 dead to well over a million. Inevitably, the issue has become a political football: the Bush Administration, the British Government and other supporters of the US-led occupation seize on the lowest estimates and opponents on the highest.

Yawn. The whole WMD case was proven correct on their behalf... you just refuse to accept it.

Interesting...

Can you please offer one piece of documented evidence of the discovery of WMD's in Iraq

 

[Krusader]

This is sad, a war launched on fraudulent intelligence.

 

[tripod]

I don't think the situation in Iraq has gone well after the fact...

The understatement of the century.

I find it compelling that no where in your rhetoric... much less probably ever in your life, do you condemn the terrorists doing these acts against their own ilk.

Nobody has to come out and condemn terrorism... it's like coming out against rape or murder. Condemnation is just an exercise in rhetoric anyway.

The whole WMD case was proven correct on their behalf... you just refuse to accept it.

Were you sniffing glue or sitting in a freshly painted and unventilated room when you wrote that?

One of the big winners, you conveniently failed to mention in your rant to paint the conflict a 100% failure... is the Kurdish people.

Hmmm... does winning mean coming closer to war with the militarily powerful Turkey? Turkey has been chomping at the bit to come in and decimate the Kurds, Saddam scared the shit out of Turkey... they're not so scared anymore.

Actually incorrect, what has been established is Iran is funding/supplying the bulk of the terrorism in Iraq... that is what has come into the clear.

It hasn't been established, it is not a FACT, it is an OPINION and it is NOT clear. Just because your TV is stuck on FOX doesn't mean that what they say is fact, it is most likely disingenuous with it's real roots based in propaganda. FOX news is an extension of the Bush administration... why can't you see that? It was created with the sole purpose of towing the conservative line. It is owned by Rupert Murdoch and run by Roger Ailes, both are avowed and notoriously jingoistic conservatives... there is close to NO objectivity to be found in FOX news. But it is clear that you are a staunch conservative and probably believe that I was whisked away and brainwashed in Tehran to believe such things.

 

[Elmer Gantry]

I don't think the situation in Iraq has gone well after the fact, but to paint this 100% failure rate is disingenuous and incorrect.

This is a tough one to argue either way. 100% failure would imply that the Coalition was forced to retreat by the insurgents and left behind a power vacuum with predictable results. However, it will go down as one of the darkest periods of US military history.

Firstly, the fact that they are there at all is highly illegal and in direct violation of the Geneva Accords and the Nuremberg principles. Many other countries have lived in infamy for intervening for "humanitarian reasons" and to seek regime change.

Secondly, while fighting a standing army on a desert landscape is one of the things the US and British armies do very, very well, urban counter insurgency is one scenario they are ill equipped for. As is any other "real" army. The civilian casualty rate (whoevers figures you want to trust) is getting dangerously close to the US Army's own guideline of not killing a certain percentage of the population. The Iraqi on the streets seems to think this has already been exceeded.

Thirdly, the government being groomed for the job of ruling Iraq is no different to the sad precession of tinpot South Americans that the US Govt (especially Reagan) was so fond of. Internal turmoil would still be guaranteed without the external help it's getting at present from Iran and various other groups. So the whole thing has been and will continue to be a failure in regards to regime change as a stable govt has not been formed nearly five years after the fact.

I'm very curious as to the 'source' on the latter... 700K???!!!

700K is a big number but it is certainly in the hundreds of thousands. And that's not counting the hundreds of thousands that died before the invasion under the illegal sanctions against Iraq and the bombing campaign which continued throughmost of the 90's without anyone even bothering to report on it.

And I find it compelling that no where in your rhetoric... much less probably ever in your life, do you condemn the terrorists doing these acts against their own ilk. It's the US/coalition's fault that terrorists are killing Iraqi citizens???
Spare me silly.

Yes, it ultimately is their fault. This is a very unpalatable truth in todays blame seeking society which we live in. The main gripe which has caused the uprise of Islamic terrorism is the Palestinian problem and the US bases in the Holy Land. That is an inconvenient truth for you.

Yawn. The whole WMD case was proven correct on their behalf... you just refuse to accept it.
You forgot the Halliburton blabber in this piece, for the record. Amuse me, please... and throw in a 9/11 conspiracy for good measure.

To this day, WMD's have not found any justification or existence on Iraq in the decade before the invasion. What was leftover in the 90's that Hans Blick and his team found had been supplied by the US when Saddam was one of their clients. The whole thing fell in a hole once that supply line got cut off. They knew that all to well, they were just banking on the idea that we had no way of finding out.

And even if they found a pile of fuelled up Scuds ready to go, it is still no justification for invasion.

One of the big winners, you conveniently failed to mention in your rant to paint the conflict a 100% failure... is the Kurdish people.

Who are now facing even worse treatment by your friends, the Turks. With your help and aquiesence. Note how they aren't "kurdish freedom fighters" anymore but "PPK rebels"?

Actually incorrect, what has been established is Iran is funding/supplying the bulk of the terrorism in Iraq... that is what has come into the clear.

True, Iran has found a neat trick in funding and organising a lot of the insurgent forces. The current thinking is that once the US leaves, tey will come out of the wood work and say "Look, we have banished the infidels from the Holy Land, we are the real rulers." Current US policy is playing right into this scenario.

Ah, The Independent,... talk about subjective and un-biased journalism (sarcasm).

Yes, but at least they don't just regurgitate governmental press releases and call it journalism. They actually do work for a living.

Many believe better the terrorists focus their energies over there, vs. over in the US.

With attitudes like that, no wonder most of the world views the United States of America as the leading threat to peace and security.