Iraqi Civilian Death Toll

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Morph

Originally posted by: conjur

Answer: over 300 tons in first gulf war, who knows how much in this one

300 tons of munitions...not DU.

WRONG. Thank you for playing. Please try again.

The 300+ tons is the weight of the DU. The total weight of munitions dumped into Iraq is of course a lot larger.[/quote]
link, please. And afraid to answer the other questions? You are quite adept at redirection and ignoring key parts of posts.

 

[iamWolverine]

Originally posted by: conjur

linked

HA!

Robert Fisk? Puh-leeze. He might as well be working for the Iraqi press.[/quote]

Well Iraqi press in the last war and this war seems to be more accurate as far as reporting casualties and what is actually happening on the ground i.e. whether forces are actually in control of cities etc than american press, so i'm sure Fisk would rather work by Iraqi press standards much more than American press standards of disinformation

 

[iamWolverine]

 

[conjur]

Article on lack of effects from veterans with DU fragments in their bodies

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: flavio

Whether we intentionally target civilians or just accidently kill them because we dropped a bomb in the city and "accidently" killed them (who would have guessed that would happen?) what difference does it make? They still die because of our invasion.

No, they die because Saddam has brought this action upon himself and the people of Iraq.

It would all end if he would order his troops to stand down and surrender.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine

Originally posted by: conjur

linked

HA!

Robert Fisk? Puh-leeze. He might as well be working for the Iraqi press.

Well Iraqi press in the last war and this war seems to be more accurate as far as reporting casualties and what is actually happening on the ground i.e. whether forces are actually in control of cities etc than american press, so i'm sure Fisk would rather work by Iraqi press standards much more than American press standards of disinformation[/quote]
Iraq press...more accurate??

BWA HA HA HA! WTF are you smoking? Do you even pay attention to the Iraqi Information Minister? He's borderline delusional.

And the Iraqi gov't exaggerated casualties from the 1991 Gulf War that are rebuffed by even the Red Cross.

 

[Morph]

BTW Conjur,

DU is now used in bombs. Look here for details: Text

I will get you your other links soon.

 

[iamWolverine]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: flavio

Whether we intentionally target civilians or just accidently kill them because we dropped a bomb in the city and "accidently" killed them (who would have guessed that would happen?) what difference does it make? They still die because of our invasion.

No, they die because Saddam has brought this action upon himself and the people of Iraq.

It would all end if he would order his troops to stand down and surrender.

So which countries are you in favor of invading next? What sort of belligerent rampage would you like to outline? The U.S. didn't give Saddam any of his power no, U.S. didn't give him any weapons, U.S. is innocent, but we'll be sweet enough to drop a few megatons of explosives into a forgein country killing innocent people just because we didnt get our way with everything, cause suddenly our well trained evil dictator became a little too well trained

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: flavio

Whether we intentionally target civilians or just accidently kill them because we dropped a bomb in the city and "accidently" killed them (who would have guessed that would happen?) what difference does it make? They still die because of our invasion.

No, they die because Saddam has brought this action upon himself and the people of Iraq.

It would all end if he would order his troops to stand down and surrender.

Whatever makes you feel better. I see a correlation between the bombs and the dying.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: flavio

Whether we intentionally target civilians or just accidently kill them because we dropped a bomb in the city and "accidently" killed them (who would have guessed that would happen?) what difference does it make? They still die because of our invasion.

No, they die because Saddam has brought this action upon himself and the people of Iraq.

It would all end if he would order his troops to stand down and surrender.

Whatever makes you feel better. I see a correlation between the bombs and the dying.

But what you fail to see is that the bombs are being dropped as a direct result of Saddam's violation of 17 UN Resolutions. Were you in such protest in 1998 when Clinton launched cruise missile attacks against Iraq? Were you in such protest when Clinton ordered air strikes in Kosovo in 1999? Or were you fine with that because Bush wasn't in the White House?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine

So which countries are you in favor of invading next? What sort of belligerent rampage would you like to outline? The U.S. didn't give Saddam any of his power no, U.S. didn't give him any weapons, U.S. is innocent, but we'll be sweet enough to drop a few megatons of explosives into a forgein country killing innocent people just because we didnt get our way with everything, cause suddenly our well trained evil dictator became a little too well trained

The United Nations found Saddam in material breach of the various resolutions passed over the last 12 years. He broke the cease fire agreement, on several occasions. Bush finally called him to task.

Yes, the U.S. backed Saddam in Iran/Iraq war. Saddam even earned UN praise for literacy programs. However, he turned dictator and became the Saddam we know today (someone willing to torture and murder family, friends, and innocent civilians).

 

[iamWolverine]

I think it's silly to speak of a cease fire agreement when there have been US/UK planes dropping bombs throughout iraq since the gulf war stopped. And while yes Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions, the US is now in violation of the UN charter in conducting this war . . . two wrongs don't make a right, and the US is conducting many more wrongs in this war.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine
I think it's silly to speak of a cease fire agreement when there have been US/UK planes dropping bombs throughout iraq since the gulf war stopped. And while yes Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions, the US is now in violation of the UN charter in conducting this war . . . two wrongs don't make a right, and the US is conducting many more wrongs in this war.

<sigh>

And just why do you think the US/UK have dropped bombs on Iraq since the cease-fire? Remember Clinton firing cruise missiles into Iraq in 1998? I don't think you do. Remember the no-fly zones that were created? I don't think you do. Remember that radar sites were not to lock onto US/UK planes? I don't think you do.

And the U.S. did not break a UN charter. It is merely continuing what was put forth from Resolution 687, the cease fire. Saddam broke it.

 

[iamWolverine]

<sigh> and you believe that the no-fly zones were legal?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine
<sigh> and you believe that the no-fly zones were legal?

They aren't illegal. Yes, they are a bit of a grey area but the resolution states that Iraq must not take or threaten hostile action against any member nation to uphold any council (UNSC) resolutions (which include a mandate to maintain peace and stability in the region.)

So...if planes are being fired upon, they will fire back. If radar locks onto a plane, the site will be hit. It was never a shoot-first policy.

 

[iamWolverine]

"grey area" . . . yes what lawyers and PR crews love to take advantage of and convince you of as acceptable . . .

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: iamWolverine
"grey area" . . . yes what lawyers and PR crews love to take advantage of and convince you of as acceptable . . .

And you're complaining of the benefits of the no-fly zones?? To protect the Kurds in the North and the Shiites in the south??

I guess they'd have been better off with Saddam continuing to indiscriminately killing them.

 

[specktre]

you know what if you don't like the fact that war is ugly, you are a flat out pussy. You say you are against war yet you do nothin except sit on the corner with a sign. maybe if your pussy protestor ass would have voted for your weak ass grean pease candidate then maybe there would be peice in the world.

god damn i can't stand you anti-american pussies. stop bitching and coplaining about a situation you have no control over.

oh yeah, i could give a rats ass if we killed 2 thousand iraqis, good ridense if it would shut you assholes up

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: specktre
you know what if you don't like the fact that war is ugly, you are a flat out pussy. You say you are against war yet you do nothin except sit on the corner with a sign. maybe if your pussy protestor ass would have voted for your weak ass grean pease candidate then maybe there would be peice in the world.

god damn i can't stand you anti-american pussies. stop bitching and coplaining about a situation you have no control over.

oh yeah, i could give a rats ass if we killed 2 thousand iraqis, good ridense if it would shut you assholes up

uhhh....yeah....thanks for sharing.

 

[Softballslug]

Ponder this,

Had the terrorist strikes had not occurred against us, we probably wouldn't be in this situation! That was a DELIBERATE strike against NON-MILITARY targets. Sadam had all the time in the world to put an end to his ways and he CHOSE not to! He could have easily banned and made an effor to remove terrorism from his country, but again, he CHOSE not to! He could have left the country in exile, just weeks ago, again he CHOSE not to.

I think the military has done a valiant effort to keep the civilian casualties to a minimum. We must also remember where these numbers are coming from....

 

[NesuD]

Morph for crying out loud give it a rest already.

 

[iamWolverine]

Originally posted by: Softballslug
Ponder this,

Had the terrorist strikes had not occurred against us, we probably wouldn't be in this situation! That was a DELIBERATE strike against NON-MILITARY targets. Sadam had all the time in the world to put an end to his ways and he CHOSE not to! He could have easily banned and made an effor to remove terrorism from his country, but again, he CHOSE not to! He could have left the country in exile, just weeks ago, again he CHOSE not to.

I think the military has done a valiant effort to keep the civilian casualties to a minimum. We must also remember where these numbers are coming from....

I know perfectly well that these actions, the abuses of power that the U.S. has taken are all in part a result of using the events of Sept.11 as a background excuse, by your logic the death of innocent Americans somehow justifies the death of other innocent people? And there is no evidence that Iraq had anything to do with those terrorist attacks, not that anyone inundated by mainstream media would believe that. Rather than trying to understand why there are problems, why anyone would have a problem with the U.S. you think that bombing the hell out of people will solve all of our problems, that taking control of oil fields and pipelines in Afghanistan and Iraq along with spending more on "Defense" than the whole world combined will give America so much undisputed power that the world over will all be madly in love with the U.S. This is not the reason that people have loved the U.S. in the past, and it will not be the reason people will love the U.S. in the future. You want to know what I am doing as an anti-war protestor? I am trying to bring some humanity and reason to all those that are devoid of it here. You may retort well why didn't I try and bring some reason to Saddam, and the answer would be I am not a diplomat, I am not nor have I ever been in any position to negotiate and speak to this man, and to say that 12 years of "negotiations" never worked with this man is only a half truth, and to say that weapons inspections were not working is an outright lie. Keeping civilian casualties to a minimum would mean never have invading Iraq, therefore no the U.S. military has not kept the civilian casualties to a minimum. It's the 21st century and rather than working towards any sort of peaceful future we are headed towards a sci-fi nightmare as the U.S. tries to "secure" it's future with brute force--there is nothing that can be said to justify this, nor have I heard anything proposed to reasonably justify this. Saying that Saddam is evil does not justify this war, saying that the U.S. was hit by a tragedy does not justify this war, saying that UN resolutions were violated does not justify this war, NOTHING JUSTIFIES THIS WAR. You want to agree with the administration on any of their points be my guest you are only degrading yourself and any of the good values that this country could stand for in doing so.