Private study estimates Iraqi war dead at 13,000

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Link
What a great way to liberate people, kill them! It's the ultimate liberator from all your worldy woes. 13,000 or so, a conservative estimate at that. On a percentage of population basis, that would be as if we lost 152609 people on 9/11. Great job Bushies. Combattants or civilians, a life is a life, and those lives would not have been lost had we not started a pointless war. Our 300 or so dead pale in comparison (before y'all slit my throat, I'm talking numbers here, not saying one life is worth any more than the next, even though many of you would say that 1 American life is worth more than 13,000 Iraqis easy).

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yeah but we got Saddam and Osama so it's was worth it . . . wait a minute . . .

 

[DealMonkey]

Right you are, and we also stopped terrorism too . . . wait a second . . .

 

[Doboji]

As any good investor will tell you, true cost is only accounted for when you include oppourtunitee cost....

How many Iraqis would have died, if we hadn't gone in?

I've heard it estimated that 5,000 died a month in Iraq under Saddam, due to starvation, and Saddam's thugs. And don't even start the sanctions argument... if there's one thing we do know... it's that Saddam had more than enough money to take care of Iraqi citzens... instead he built palaces, mosques, and stockpiled gold.

-Max

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Doboji
As any good investor will tell you, true cost is only accounted for when you include oppourtunitee cost....

Pure crap.

How many Iraqis would have died, if we hadn't gone in?

None by our hands.

I've heard it estimated that 5,000 died a month in Iraq under Saddam, due to starvation, and Saddam's thugs.

Do you have a link to back that up? Or are you just pulling figures out of the air?

And don't even start the sanctions argument...

One word: sanctions.

if there's one thing we do know... it's that Saddam had more than enough money to take care of Iraqi citzens... instead he built palaces, mosques, and stockpiled gold.

You could say the same thing about the wealthy in our country too.

 

[DealMonkey]

nm

 

[DealMonkey]

tp

 

[DealMonkey]

qp

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I've heard it estimated that 5,000 died a month in Iraq under Saddam, due to starvation, and Saddam's thugs. And don't even start the sanctions argument... if there's one thing we do know... it's that Saddam had more than enough money to take care of Iraqi citzens... instead he built palaces, mosques, and stockpiled gold.

Actually those estimates date from the early post-Gulf War and impact of sanctions. The UN Oil for Food Program evolved out of the devastating impact that sanctions were having on the Iraqi people. Now there's little doubt that Saddam killed many people but the toll of his regime dates back to the 1970s. He was killing thousands when Rumsfeld went to shake his hand and give him $200M to support the war he started against Iran . . . during which he killed with impunity.

Saddam certainly deserves his reputation as a blight upon the world. Then again, it could be argued that many alleged heads of state have established a pattern of favoring war over taking care of the needs of the citizenry.

 

[DealMonkey]

nm

 

[CaptnKirk]

When people keep bringing up "But look how many died when Hussein was in power" or
"How many more whold have died if we hadn't done something" that is pure speculative bullshit.

It has about the same merit as "We know exactly how much WMD Hussein has and where he has it"
or "Saddam is prepared to use WMD in as little as 45 minutes"

Disinformation and spin for political leverage over a population that didn't pay enought attention
before show to enen know what the show was about, and whether or not it was truthful.

Are you still buying the falsehoods and fabrications of this Administration that is clueless ?
During the 'Shock & Awe" portion and the ensuing rush to Baghdad, we were told that there
were virtually no civilian casualties, and that the liberators would be met by vilagers throwing flowers.

15,000 dead civilians later the Iraqi Army that dissolved rather than confronting Tanks and Jet Planes
head on, have re-grouped in the underground, with civilian support, and are fighting back on their terms - not our terms.

Anyone who understood the Viet Nam Conflict or actually spent time in a Hot War Zone knew this was coming.
Those who didn't were those who wouldn't listen to the Military Experience and dismissed them (Rumsfeld & Cronies)
or spent their time AWOL when they should have been paying attention to the ways of the world (Bush)

This situation will deteriorate from here, as the Invisible Iraqi Army becomes more finessful ion their operations.
The 'Bunker-Down Mentality' that Bush want's to go to will only further alienate our efforts with the Iraqi people.

 

[tnitsuj]

They Died for Freedom....


Pours one out for my Iraqi homies...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

4300 "non-combat". Yes it sucks but 13000 is total - both those shooting at us, those totally innocent, those used as shields, those killed by Iraqi forces...etc. Sure it still isn't "good" but it isn't as "bad" as it could have been - just like our loses. Remember all the armchair generals who were waiting for thousands of US soldiers to lose their lives during the advance? Yeah - that's right, we've had very few compared to ANYONE's predictions.

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

It's amazing how easy it is to minimize human lives . . . just like the terrorists that have minimal consideration of the innocent.

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
They Died for Freedom....

Sooooo lets say I live under a ruler who killed his own people between each lunch, breakfast, and dinner. Now lets say that a powerful country stands up against this evil ruler and vows to liberate me and my family. If this powerful country, ends up killing me, my family, and enough to fill a small town, we died for freedom?

 

[VioletAura]

When I went to Iraq in the late 1980s, it was about to be officially declared a ?First World Country? because Saddam had built the country up to such an extent. But it was so totally destroyed in 1991 by the U.S.-imposed sanctions which are causing?according to the UN?the deaths of 5,000 children every month. It totals something like nearly two million deaths. For every child that dies, there are five who grow up malnourished to the point that they have brain damage.

OMG, Saddam built his nation to a "First World Country", what a horrible man, good thing the US imposed those sanctions.

Source

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
They Died for Freedom....

Sooooo lets say I live under a ruler who killed his own people between each lunch, breakfast, and dinner. Now lets say that a powerful country stands up against this evil ruler and vows to liberate me and my family. If this powerful country, ends up killing me, my family, and enough to fill a small town, we died for freedom?

Essentially.

 

[0roo0roo]

None by our hands.

complicity through neglect, wonderful.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Doboji
As any good investor will tell you, true cost is only accounted for when you include oppourtunitee cost....

Pure crap.

actually, no, that is completely true.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
4300 "non-combat". Yes it sucks but 13000 is total - both those shooting at us, those totally innocent, those used as shields, those killed by Iraqi forces...etc. Sure it still isn't "good" but it isn't as "bad" as it could have been - just like our loses. Remember all the armchair generals who were waiting for thousands of US soldiers to lose their lives during the advance? Yeah - that's right, we've had very few compared to ANYONE's predictions.

CkG

And by the same token, it's a hellalot more than ZERO. Yeah, I guess it's worth 13,000 lives if it's in the name of "freedom." Are you waving your flag(s) yet?

 

[DealMonkey]

dp. damn, what's w/ the forums today?? :Q

 

[Doboji]

'These sanctions have not had any adverse impact on Saddam Hussein and his coterie, but they have taken a toll on the civilian population of Iraq. According to UNICEF, the United Nations Children Fund, the sanctions have created such a harsh resource-constrained and unhygienic environment in Iraq that kills 5,000 children under the age of five every month. The Economist magazine comments, "Even if the truth is half that number, it would still mean that about 360,000 children had died as a result of 12 years of sanctions."'

The Article

Above is from the extremely liberal "Counterpunch" so noone can accuse me of using "neo-con" biased sources. Here the estimate is 5,000 children per month under the age of 5.... thats not even including over the age of 5. The argument here is that the sanctions are responsible... I consider Saddam responsible, as his government had more than enough resources to keep his people fed, and well housed... Instead he built palaces, mosques, and brothels.

Human rights watch has declared that 30-50,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam in the 80s... including 5,000 killed in a single gas attack on a civillian villiage. In 1991 after the Shiite intifada some estimates say as many as 250,000 people were killed and buried in mass graves, that are slowly being unearthed now.

All things considered 13,000 dead is a tragic, disgusting loss of life that could NOT have been avoided.

-Max

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: Doboji
'These sanctions have not had any adverse impact on Saddam Hussein and his coterie, but they have taken a toll on the civilian population of Iraq. According to UNICEF, the United Nations Children Fund, the sanctions have created such a harsh resource-constrained and unhygienic environment in Iraq that kills 5,000 children under the age of five every month. The Economist magazine comments, "Even if the truth is half that number, it would still mean that about 360,000 children had died as a result of 12 years of sanctions."'

The Article

Above is from the extremely liberal "Counterpunch" so noone can accuse me of using "neo-con" biased sources. Here the estimate is 5,000 children per month under the age of 5.... thats not even including over the age of 5. The argument here is that the sanctions are responsible... I consider Saddam responsible, as his government had more than enough resources to keep his people fed, and well housed... Instead he built palaces, mosques, and brothels.

Maybe so, but are those 5,000 kids a month better off now or will they have to wait the 5 or so years it will probably take to get the country back to running condition? No one is arguing that Saddam was scum, the question is, how much better are we going to make Iraqis lives.


Human rights watch has declared that 30-50,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam in the 80s... including 5,000 killed in a single gas attack on a civillian villiage. In 1991 after the Shiite intifada some estimates say as many as 250,000 people were killed and buried in mass graves, that are slowly being unearthed now.

We supported Saddam during the '80s so some of that blood is on our hands. We turned the other cheek during the 91 uprising so more of that blood is on our hands. We killed 13,000 during our "liberation". ALL that blood is on our hands.


All things considered 13,000 dead is a tragic, disgusting loss of life that could NOT have been avoided.

Could not have been avoided? Give me a break. It could have very well been avoided if we hadn't invaded for BS reasons. Have you ever seen 13,000 of anything? I once saw 10,000 marbles in a huge glass jar, blew my mind away. If 13,000 isn't anything why do we bitch about the 3,000 who died during 9/11? Why do Israelis bitch when 20 or so die in a suicide bombing? I'm sure those who purpertrate those attacks beleive that it could NOT have been avoided. What disgusts us is that it COULD and SHOULD have been avoided because it is unnecessary.

-Max

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Doboji
'These sanctions have not had any adverse impact on Saddam Hussein and his coterie, but they have taken a toll on the civilian population of Iraq. According to UNICEF, the United Nations Children Fund, the sanctions have created such a harsh resource-constrained and unhygienic environment in Iraq that kills 5,000 children under the age of five every month. The Economist magazine comments, "Even if the truth is half that number, it would still mean that about 360,000 children had died as a result of 12 years of sanctions."'

The Article

Above is from the extremely liberal "Counterpunch" so noone can accuse me of using "neo-con" biased sources. Here the estimate is 5,000 children per month under the age of 5.... thats not even including over the age of 5. The argument here is that the sanctions are responsible... I consider Saddam responsible, as his government had more than enough resources to keep his people fed, and well housed... Instead he built palaces, mosques, and brothels.

Human rights watch has declared that 30-50,000 Kurds were killed by Saddam in the 80s... including 5,000 killed in a single gas attack on a civillian villiage. In 1991 after the Shiite intifada some estimates say as many as 250,000 people were killed and buried in mass graves, that are slowly being unearthed now.

All things considered 13,000 dead is a tragic, disgusting loss of life that could NOT have been avoided.

-Max

One stat for you, US Children under 5 mortality rate per 1,000 live births (UNICEF estimates) 8 per 1,000. There are ~4 million births in the US per year. That's 32,000 children US government killed per year according to your logic.

And who make you God and decide if 13,000 dead is justified for removing Saddam for what he did 15, 20 years ago?

Let's see if you still make that kind of bold statement when your family and friends are one of those 13,000 people killed.

 

[Doboji]

One stat for you, US Children under 5 mortality rate per 1,000 live births (UNICEF estimates) 8 per 1,000. There are ~4 million births in the US per year. That's 32,000 children US government killed per year according to your logic.

And who make you God and decide if 13,000 dead is justified for removing Saddam for what he did 15, 20 years ago?

Let's see if you still make that kind of bold statement when your family and friends are one of those 13,000 people killed.

Ok so let me get this straight.... thousands of people didnt die in Iraq of sanctions?.... Ok but I'm gonna hold you to that... no hypocritical switch later when you use the sanctions to prove how "mean" the US is. But even if we discount the starvation deaths... what about the hundreds of thousands killed by Saddam for the 91' uprising?

Saddam also did things like, allow terrorists to train in Iraq, he sent money to the families of Suicide bombers in Israel. I know you're going to say thats Israel and not the United States... but anyway you look at it, Saddam Hussein was an open supporter of terrorism. To me the biggest hypocracy of the Bush administration is not it's decision to go into Iraq, it's Bush's refusal to be tougher on other terrorist states. (although we're getting off to a good start with Syria).

Hey man look... noone wants people to die... I dont want anyone to die. But isn't your argument kinda like the argument for not bombing the concentration camps in germany?... Yes if those camps had been bombed tens of thousands of innocent people, but many more millions would have been saved. And I'm not saying I'd be happy being one of those bombed... but if I were permitted retrospect, I still would have considered it the right decision.

Fact is we didnt do this simply to punish Saddam for his actions decades ago, or even in the most recent decade. We did this because eventually Saddam Hussein and Iraq needed to be dealt with... the whole containment theory no longer works.... (take North Korea as an example)... And while I agree with you, that Bush lied about the threat of Iraq, Iraq was no immediate threat.... However I do think that the fickle american public is and was... and that is why Bush lied... Do I think that makes it ok?... No... Do I condemn it? Yes.... we should live or die by our democracy.... even though I think that in our present crisis... it is our democracy that will kill us. Bush needs to go... even if I support his decisions in Iraq... his domestic policy scares me... and he did lie.

-Max