Iraqi civilian body count (EDIT: U.S. & Coalition/Casualties added)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Originally posted by: bentwookie
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: dahunan
This has been posted several times..

We are aware and you seem to only be focusing on the ways to make the US look bad. Am I wrong?

I love America with all my heart, but face reality: our government does some pretty f*cked up things that we have no right to be proud of.

it's for the greater good...you condone keeping a man who killed 3 million arabs in power?

lmfao

You twist words I didnt say, and you are trying to infer that anyone that doesnt agree with you must be a saddam lover... riiiiiight.

 

Bleep

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,972
0
0
How can anyone know how many civilian casualties there are when the Iraqi soldiers are not wearing uniforms.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: swifty3
Originally posted by: bentwookie
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: dahunan
This has been posted several times..

We are aware and you seem to only be focusing on the ways to make the US look bad. Am I wrong?

I love America with all my heart, but face reality: our government does some pretty f*cked up things that we have no right to be proud of.

it's for the greater good...you condone keeping a man who killed 3 million arabs in power?


You have no source for your "3 million arab deaths" caused by Saddam, so shut up or use a legitmate, proven source for this info. Your rhetoric and propaganda is as bad as the fvckin Iraqi information ministers.

His non compliance with sanctions have caused an estimated 1.5 million deaths, how many arabs (Iraqi, Iranian) died in that war? Kurds? Shiites? Kuwaitis? At least 2 million total Arabs, easily.

Your numbers are pulled out of the air and they are Inhumane sanctions by the UN and kept in place by the US. They only served to starve Iraqi civilians.

 

Tiger

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,312
0
0
and they are Inhumane sanctions by the UN and kept in place by the US. They only served to starve Iraqi civilians.
They were kept in place by the UN not the US. They would have been dropped if Saddam had complied with outstanding UN resolutions.
Nice try though.
 

steell

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2001
1,569
0
76
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Originally posted by: swifty3
Originally posted by: bentwookie
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Originally posted by: dahunan
This has been posted several times..

We are aware and you seem to only be focusing on the ways to make the US look bad. Am I wrong?

I love America with all my heart, but face reality: our government does some pretty f*cked up things that we have no right to be proud of.

it's for the greater good...you condone keeping a man who killed 3 million arabs in power?


You have no source for your "3 million arab deaths" caused by Saddam, so shut up or use a legitmate, proven source for this info. Your rhetoric and propaganda is as bad as the fvckin Iraqi information ministers.

His non compliance with sanctions have caused an estimated 1.5 million deaths, how many arabs (Iraqi, Iranian) died in that war? Kurds? Shiites? Kuwaitis? At least 2 million total Arabs, easily.

Your numbers are pulled out of the air and they are Inhumane sanctions by the UN and kept in place by the US. They only served to starve Iraqi civilians.
Have you seen the number of, and the pictures of, the Palaces that Saddam has built since The Gulf war? And then there is the underground Palaces and bunkers. Can you even begin to guess at the outrageous cost? So I think it's easy to tell exactly "Who" was starving the Iraqi people.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Tiger
and they are Inhumane sanctions by the UN and kept in place by the US. They only served to starve Iraqi civilians.
They were kept in place by the UN not the US. They would have been dropped if Saddam had complied with outstanding UN resolutions.
Nice try though.

Other countries wanted to remove them but the US wouldn't let it happen. They would never be dropped as long as Hussein was in power.

Nice try though.

 

Tiger

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,312
0
0
Other countries wanted to remove them but the US wouldn't let it happen. They would never be dropped as long as Hussein was in power.
Mainly France, Germany, and Russia. For purely economic reasons. So I guess a UN sanction is only good till somebody starts losing money on the deal.
That's exactly why the UN is nothing more than a glorified debating society that is better off ignored. They're like tits on boar, useless and irrelevent.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Tiger
Other countries wanted to remove them but the US wouldn't let it happen. They would never be dropped as long as Hussein was in power.
Mainly France, Germany, and Russia. For purely economic reasons. So I guess a UN sanction is only good till somebody starts losing money on the deal.
That's exactly why the UN is nothing more than a glorified debating society that is better off ignored. They're like tits on boar, useless and irrelevent.

Here....

For almost 10 years, the people of Iraq have been subject to the most severe international sanctions in history. While specific statistics vary, all sources confirm that sanctions have resulted in a humanitarian disaster of enormous proportions.

The real and tragic impacts of these decade-long sanctions are hardly mentioned in the media and have received little attention from diplomats and government officials world-wide. In the absence of any meaningful public debate, Canadians are largely unaware of the devastation these sanctions have caused.

While medicine, food and "supplies for essential human needs" were to be exempt from the sanctions, the arbitrary, inefficient and highly political process by which import goods are approved has prevented the most basic needs from being met. Coupled with a ban on goods which can be categorized as "dual-use" (civilian or military), common items such as candles, chalk, soap and light bulbs are prevented from reaching Iraqi citizens. Iraq?s crumbling infrastructure also contributes to the country?s inability to provide necessities to its citizens. The "oil-for-food" program has done little to alleviate this suffering.





Text
 

elzmaddy

Senior member
Oct 29, 2002
479
0
0
Whether its sanctions or bombing Baghdad, I just don't see how you can punish everyone for the actions of a few.
 

Tiger

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,312
0
0
The "oil-for-food" program has done little to alleviate this suffering.
That's right. Because Saddam spent it all on a new palace.
More idiocy from the UN. Allowing the regime to control the proceeds from oil for food.
This is why the UN won't have anything more than a humanitarian role in the reconstitution of Iraq. They can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: Tiger
The "oil-for-food" program has done little to alleviate this suffering.
That's right. Because Saddam spent it all on a new palace.
More idiocy from the UN. Allowing the regime to control the proceeds from oil for food.
This is why the UN won't have anything more than a humanitarian role in the reconstitution of Iraq. They can't chew gum and walk at the same time.

Yeah, it's all the UN's fault.

The propaganda makes you feel better I suppose.

 

B00ne

Platinum Member
May 21, 2001
2,168
1
0
Originally posted by: Bignate603
If the regime continued as it was I think they would have knocked off more then that in a year, don't you think?

Well probably, but mainly because of the sanctions and because the sactions strengthened Saddams position...

 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Tiger
The "oil-for-food" program has done little to alleviate this suffering.
That's right. Because Saddam spent it all on a new palace.
More idiocy from the UN. Allowing the regime to control the proceeds from oil for food.
This is why the UN won't have anything more than a humanitarian role in the reconstitution of Iraq. They can't chew gum and walk at the same time.

Yeah, it's all the UN's fault.

The propaganda makes you feel better I suppose.

Damn right it is the U.N.s fault. They allowed the situation to exist for 12 years and then when faced with a do something or we will ultimatum from the US they collapsed. Sounds like a waste of N.Y. real estate to. I'm all for evicting them. Let France
rolleye.gif
host the UN from now on as it seems they want to run the thing anyway.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: ub4me
Originally posted by: Alistar7 His non compliance with sanctions have caused an estimated 1.5 million deaths, how many arabs (Iraqi, Iranian) died in that war? Kurds? Shiites? Kuwaitis? At least 2 million total Arabs, easily.


No! You are WRONG.
Please research before you post anything.


I have, thank you. Check with the WHO and the UN for figures on deaths due to sanctions, Saddams fault for not complying, his fauklt for the deaths, especially since that moeny went elsewhere.

He attacked Iran, starting that war, how many arabs died in that war?

You are right, I was wrong, my number is actually far lower than realistic accepted figures, I tried to avoid idiots by keeping it low, my bad.

I love how your sources do not attribute ONE civilian death to Iraqi forces, where are those that were EXECUTED for trying to surrender or refusing to fight? What about those hung or killed for WAVING at our forces? What about the people who were used as human shields? What about those killed for trying to stop their children from being used as shields?
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: ub4me
Originally posted by: Tiger
2/3 of those so called sources have no credibilty outside the middle east and more than a few are nothing more than mouth pieces for the Iraqi regime.

Oh come on~
Do you think these are lack of credibility?

Why do you keep posting this site? The aren't credible by any reasonable standard:

"This includes deaths resulting from the destruction of water treatment plants or any other lethal effects on the civilian population. The test for us remains whether the bullet (or equivalent) is attributed to a piece of weaponry where the trigger was pulled by a US or allied finger, or is due to "collateral damage" by either side (with the burden of responsibility falling squarely on the shoulders of those who initiate war without UN Security Council authorization)."
 

ub4me

Senior member
Sep 18, 2000
460
0
0
Originally posted by: NightTrain Why do you keep posting this site?

Why do you keep saying like that? Do you feel guilty?
If you support this war, it means you should assume all the horrible faces of the war including innocent civilian casualties and destructions, and our side casualties.
Face it and accetp its cruelty, or don't support unjust war like this.

Or just tell the truth: This war is not for the Iraqi people. It's just for oil and hegemony in the Middle East.

 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: ub4me
Originally posted by: NightTrain Why do you keep posting this site?
Why do you keep saying like that? Do you feel guilty?
I don't assume any responsibility when Saddam's regime purposely executes his own civilians. A benefit of us being there is that no longer will be allowed to happen. The numbers on your site blame us for any death in the country since January...hence it is not credible and neither are you.

I'm not FOR any war. I'm not FOR people dying anywhere or on any side. But your simplistic view that "war is bad because people die" ignores thousand of years of history which recognize the fact that sometimes, however regrettable, it *is* necessary.

If you support this war, it means you should assume all the horrible faces of the war including innocent civilian casualties and destructions, and our side casualties.
Then why the Nuremberg trials? It was obviously all the Allies responsibility.
 

ub4me

Senior member
Sep 18, 2000
460
0
0
Originally posted by: Alistar7
I have, thank you. Check with the WHO and the UN for figures on deaths due to sanctions, Saddams fault for not complying, his fauklt for the deaths, especially since that moeny went elsewhere.
Please read flavio's post about sanctions. I'm getting tired of you ignorance.

He attacked Iran, starting that war, how many arabs died in that war?
How many? You are not sure. Right?
Have you seen the picture that Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam in 1983? You cannot deny that we backed them up to keep fighting with Iraq. We gave them money and weapons including WMD. So we are also responsible for the deaths during Iran-Iraq war.

You are right, I was wrong, my number is actually far lower than realistic accepted figures, I tried to avoid idiots by keeping it low, my bad.

I love how your sources do not attribute ONE civilian death to Iraqi forces, where are those that were EXECUTED for trying to surrender or refusing to fight? What about those hung or killed for WAVING at our forces? What about the people who were used as human shields? What about those killed for trying to stop their children from being used as shields?
Don't trust FOX (including all US broadcasting stations) too much. It's harmful to your mental health. Those are propagandizing tools as much as Al-Jazeera.


 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Boy all the US hating peaceniks are getting really rowdy now that they've been proven wrong haven't they?

- The iraqi population is welcoming us as liberators
- We are finding WMD's
- Civilian casualties are remarkably low
- The bulk of the civilian (and military) casualties can be directly linked to the regime, which instead of surrendering honorably, is now fleeing the country in fear of reprisals

I think even if this was bloodless they wouldn't shut up. Go read a history book...
 

ub4me

Senior member
Sep 18, 2000
460
0
0
Originally posted by: NightTrain
I'm not FOR any war. I'm not FOR people dying anywhere or on any side. But your simplistic view that "war is bad because people die" ignores thousand of years of history which recognize the fact that sometimes, however regrettable, it *is* necessary.
I'm not a pacificist. I don't oppose all the war. I know there are some necessary wars. Actually I share the same view of war with you.
But in the case, I don't see any just resons for this war. We should've waited patiently to avoid innocent people's deaths.
And I believe this war will cause more hated among Arab nations (even all around the world) against us.


Then why the Nuremberg trials? It was obviously all the Allies responsibility.
No! It's different! That was a defensive war. But this one caused by us!



 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: ub4me
I'm not a pacificist. I don't oppose all the war. I know there are some necessary wars. Actually I share the same view of war with you.
But in the case, I don't see any just resons for this war. We should've waited patiently to avoid innocent people's deaths.
And I believe this war will cause more hated among Arab nations (even all around the world) against us.

This is like nailing jello to a tree.

My *only* point to you was your site has no credibility. That you stand by it precludes me from being interested in wasting any more of my time.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: ub4me
Originally posted by: Alistar7
I have, thank you. Check with the WHO and the UN for figures on deaths due to sanctions, Saddams fault for not complying, his fauklt for the deaths, especially since that moeny went elsewhere.
Please read flavio's post about sanctions. I'm getting tired of you ignorance.

He attacked Iran, starting that war, how many arabs died in that war?
How many? You are not sure. Right?
Have you seen the picture that Rumsfeld shook hands with Saddam in 1983? You cannot deny that we backed them up to keep fighting with Iraq. We gave them money and weapons including WMD. So we are also responsible for the deaths during Iran-Iraq war.

You are right, I was wrong, my number is actually far lower than realistic accepted figures, I tried to avoid idiots by keeping it low, my bad.

I love how your sources do not attribute ONE civilian death to Iraqi forces, where are those that were EXECUTED for trying to surrender or refusing to fight? What about those hung or killed for WAVING at our forces? What about the people who were used as human shields? What about those killed for trying to stop their children from being used as shields?
Don't trust FOX (including all US broadcasting stations) too much. It's harmful to your mental health. Those are propagandizing tools as much as Al-Jazeera.

My Ignorance? LOL, Flavio suggests the US is behind the sanctions, too bad they were UN sanctions signed for by France and Russia even. Did they try to have them removed early, yes, beginning in 1996. What else happened in 1996? The majority of money Saddam had control over in the food for oil program went to WHERE? 2 billion each year to France and Russia...

How many died in the Iraq~Iran war? Estimates of the number of dead range up to 1.5 million. In its war effort, Iran was supported by Syria and Libya, and received much of its weaponry from North Korea and China, as well as from covert arms transactions from the United States. Iraq enjoyed much wider support, both among Arab and Western nations: the Soviet Union was its largest supplier of arms. Notice I left the part that told who their largest weaopons supplier was.


The sanctions, enforced by a coordinated air, ground and naval blockade devastate Iraq society. The toll is one and a half million people dead, including half of the children under the age of 5 years of age.

You questioned my figures before, stating 2,500,000 arabs was too high.

Theres 3 million in two cases. svck on that ignorant troll, that goes to Flavio too.

By your reasoning we should lock up the guy at Kmart that sold a shotgun to someone who used it to kill his wife, but not the guy that killed his wife.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: ub4me
Originally posted by: Alistar7 His non compliance with sanctions have caused an estimated 1.5 million deaths, how many arabs (Iraqi, Iranian) died in that war? Kurds? Shiites? Kuwaitis? At least 2 million total Arabs, easily.


No! You are WRONG.
Please research before you post anything.


Maybe it's YOU who should do a little research before you claim to know the truth and proclaim others the ignorant ones.

Basically your credibility has been SHOT due to this thread, you are not even aware of the facts, facts you should have checked before you posted this drivel as if you actually cared about all those poor people dying.
 

KK

Lifer
Jan 2, 2001
15,903
4
81
Originally posted by: ub4me
Originally posted by: NightTrain
I'm not FOR any war. I'm not FOR people dying anywhere or on any side. But your simplistic view that "war is bad because people die" ignores thousand of years of history which recognize the fact that sometimes, however regrettable, it *is* necessary.
I'm not a pacificist. I don't oppose all the war. I know there are some necessary wars. Actually I share the same view of war with you.
But in the case, I don't see any just resons for this war. We should've waited patiently to avoid innocent people's deaths.
And I believe this war will cause more hated among Arab nations (even all around the world) against us.


Then why the Nuremberg trials? It was obviously all the Allies responsibility.
No! It's different! That was a defensive war. But this one caused by us!


That was a defensive war for who. The one's being oppressed. So this one was a defensive war on behalf of the iraqis.

Why don't you put your tail between your legs and go be a human shield, if you feel so damn strong about your opposition to this war.

KK