25,000 Iraqis dead 1,000 Americans dead

[Tigran of Sasoun]

Ok, what the hell is wrong with this number? I didnt know the Iraqi people were fighting a war. This is why people hate America, "war on terrorism" my ***! Ok 3,000 people died in 9/11, bad yes. But there are 25,000 iraqi civilians dead because of Americans. There is maybe 7,000 killed by terrorist yes but most part is killed by American soldiers.

[Atheist Peace]

Thats absolutely true but the way i see it, things are like programmed into our heads as to when we are supposed to feel a certain way and all that, and i think the media helps dictate it often. If we have a terrorist attack here and it kills 5 people it will be mourned and all that but we just dismiss what happens in iraq and continue saying 'support the troops!!' everywhere and they are fighting for freedom. Dont get me wrong though, i think 9/11 was awful and i do support the troops. I just think it is equally as awful when iraqi civilians die from our soldiers disregard and i dont just support the troops i support the people they might kill wrongly too. There is absolutely no difference between an american and an iraqi.

[Kagetora]

I think the early days of the Iraq war are were all the seriously high casulties came, Our troops were prepared to fight a huge head to head fight, instead they got something very different. The pentagon didn't plan out the peackeepiong stuff to well and so it was left to the grunts, bad decision. They were prepared and psyched up for a huge fight, heck thats what they were told they would face and many were elites who live for it, but instead they got mass surrendering and a guerilla war like vietnam. And when you lose a buddy or friend you want payback. Thats the reality, the troops were not prepared to be peace keepers so quick.

[Bruticus the Steadfast]

Where did you get your numbers?

[Damocles]

Ok, what the hell is wrong with this number? I didnt know the Iraqi people were fighting a war. This is why people hate America, "war on terrorism" my ***! Ok 3,000 people died in 9/11, bad yes. But there are 25,000 iraqi civilians dead because of Americans. There is maybe 7,000 killed by terrorist yes but most part is killed by American soldiers.

There is so many things wrong or backwards with that post I don't even know where to begin.

[Tigran of Sasoun]

Where did you get your numbers?

Oxford Research Group, and the media. O i also failed to mention that there is also criminal violence that cause a lot of the deaths too.

Edit: Damocles yes it is late there is a few thing i forgot to mention. It is not just American Soldiers but the coalition, srry for the mistakes.

[Custor]

Summary of key points in link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4696875.stm

Why are you susprised that so many civilians are dead? It's the same in practically every war.

[Elu Barcino]

I am surprised because the Americans have managed (directly or indirectly) to kill 25,000 of the people that they claim to be trying to protect.

[Tigran of Sasoun]

Its suprising that so many are dead, and plus it seems like another vietnam because of all the civilian deaths. I will the you, if vietnam or "Iraqi forces" push the US forces to the US and get the US to surrender, the US will be on trial on Human rights violations. If that ever happens.

Edit: my grammer sucks!

[Nebuchadnezzar]

That children is what is referred to as a Political Mud Pool a horrid number used cover up a much larger and incomprehensible number. If you understand war you will off coarse realise this number probably equals number of civs killed in Fallujah which once had 300,000 people.

Don't believe?
Go visit

[CrayonVonCaesar]

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Another reputable site for reported civilian deaths.

[Dromikaites]

I am surprised because the Americans have managed (directly or indirectly) to kill 25,000 of the people that they claim to be trying to protect.

Claim is a very appropriate word for the situation Or you could have written "I am surprised because the Americans have managed (directly or indirectly) to kill 25,000 of the people that they allegedly were trying to protect."

As for the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, there is none direct. 9/11 and Aghanistan - perfectly justified intervention, no real objections from any civilised country. Even Germany and France sent troops there (France increasing it's military presence by 50% in the near future). Iraq? Oil. A mineral resource Dubya and Dick Cheney know one or two things about...

If WMD would have been the real issue, then North Korea was (and still is) the next legitimate target. And no traces of WMDs in Irak as yet, by the way...

As for the claim US troops in Iraq are protecting the democracy, yes, I think this is true: in the current situation democracy cannot survive in that country without a strong military foreign presence. But this doesn't mean the US forces aren't there because Dubya and Cheney wanted the Iraqi oil. Africa is full of countries in dire need of democracy but I bet we won't see the US invading them any time soon.

[Muizer]

Ok, what the hell is wrong with this number? I didnt know the Iraqi people were fighting a war. This is why people hate America, "war on terrorism" my ***! Ok 3,000 people died in 9/11, bad yes. But there are 25,000 iraqi civilians dead because of Americans. There is maybe 7,000 killed by terrorist yes but most part is killed by American soldiers.

I think linking Western civilian victims of terrorism to Iraqi civilians killed by Allies is morally very tricky. I think it's important to avoid the suggestion that they are part of the same "bank balance". 9/11 didn't give the US a "credit" of 3000 dead to claim from Afghans or Iraqis any more than that the terrorist now have a "credit" because of the civilian dead in Iraq.

That doesn't mean that we should deny the impact such reasoning may have on public opinion. 50 dead in London result in a lot of consternation in the West. Any reason why people in the middle east should not be equally concerned about civilian deaths of terrorism? In Iraq the death rate from terrorism is equivalent to 16 times "London" each month.

So who are they going to put the blame on? GW Bush and friends extended the blame for anti western terrorism to nations that they believed harbored terrorists. If we fall for that in the west, should we be surprised if people in the middle east extend the blame for terrorist casualties in Iraq to the Allies?

Muizer

[Kagetora]

Consider this

Another reason America went to Iraq

Perhaps we also went to Iraq to get our foot in middle eastern affairs because we were so sick of being attackd by fanatics from that reagion and being to "Vaginal" to take action. Afganistan would not provide this because of its weak influence in the east. Iraq has its oil and so they have more influence so "liberating" them was more of a strategic move. Now that we have boots on the ground there and a government getting srtonger by the day, we might one day be having more talks with middle eastern countries.

but just a theory.

For all of you still saying we went to Iraq for oil should know or remeber that gas is much more expensive now $2.39 per gallon cvompared to before the war when it was $1.87 but thats just here in south Florida may vary across the US.

[SovietInsurgent]

The 25,000 Iraqi death toll can be attributed to the fact U.S. troops view Iraqi's as lower than animals. The Iraqi puppet government is incompetent and extremely corrupt its just a matter of time before the U.S. has to retreat in shame.

Removed unnecessary insults. This poster obviously dislikes America, but there is no need for the comments that were made.

[Mythos]

Perhaps we also went to Iraq to get our foot in middle eastern affairs because we were so sick of being attackd by fanatics from that reagion and being to "Vaginal" to take action.

Given that most attacks have been funded and conducted by Saudis, while many terrorists are being trained in Pakistan, I find you proposition ridiculous. The US attack on Iraq managed to transform one of the few countries in the ME that had no connections to terrorism to a terrorism bonanza. The strategic "brilliance" of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld is comparable to that of Hitler.

For all of you still saying we went to Iraq for oil should know or remeber that gas is much more expensive now $2.39 per gallon cvompared to before the war when it was $1.87 but thats just here in south Florida may vary across the US.

And what exactly makes you think that going to Iraq for oil was about your benefit. Control of oil has to do with corporate interests and geostrategical containment of Russia and China.

[cunobelin]

Its suprising that so many are dead, and plus it seems like another vietnam because of all the civilian deaths. I will the you, if vietnam or "Iraqi forces" push the US forces to the US and get the US to surrender, the US will be on trial on Human rights violations. If that ever happens.

Edit: my grammer sucks!

They are NOT & never have been Iraqi forces, they have been foreign national insurgents bent on keeping Iraq in turmoil.
The Iraqis dont want these insurgent bombing civilians as much as the the Americans dont really want to be in Iraq

[OTZ]

25,000? That's it? That's a very low toll for 2 years of almost continuous warfare. Why are all the anti-american peace-niks crying foul? Considering the type of conflict, and the firepower involved, 25K dead is a very very low figure. Barely a blip on the radar screen as far as war-related deaths go. Hell, I think its time to take the gloves off and really make this a war. I am stunned that people are "shocked" and "surprised." Do you live in a bubble? Take the blinders off kids, this ain't no walk in the park. People die in war, and freedom is always paid for in blood. 40K children die everyday from starvation, so there really should be no concern about a mere 25,000 dead civilians over 2 years. I think if the US had to, they could tack on another 50 - 75K and would still be doing ok.

[garyknowz]

“25,000 Iraqis dead 1,000 Americans dead”

Actually the numbers seem about right for a war being conducted in cities with the “enemy” hiding among the population. Also you fail to account for the insurgents, whose weaponry is vastly more inaccurate then the modern technology the US forces are using. You say terrorists account for about 7000 which could be right but insurgents or Iraqi partisans don’t necessarily fall into the “terrorist” category. I would postulate that at least half or more of the 25,000 have been caused by someone other than American.

Also note that I’m not in favor of the war, I vehemently oppose the administration’s stance regarding foreign policy, however, I’m also not blinded by pure punditry.




“I will the you, if vietnam or "Iraqi forces" push the US forces to the US and get the US to surrender, the US will be on trial on Human rights violations. If that ever happens.”

Considering Iraqi forces are allied with US forces and the insurgency is a relatively small and inefficient “military” force, not even a tiny faction of what the North Vietnamese/VC had with regard to manpower, arms, international clout and backing, I don’t even know how a comparison is even feasible.


“But this doesn't mean the US forces aren't there because Dubya and Cheney wanted the Iraqi oil. Africa is full of countries in dire need of democracy but I bet we won't see the US invading them any time soon.”

This is true. There were numerous reasons for the attack on Iraq, oil absolutely being one of them. Although I do believe that Bush really thought that Saddam was producing WMDs however failed to allow the UN inspectors to confirm setting himself up to be the fool, and a fool he is.


Kagetora:

I certainly think you idea has merit. “Creating” a powerful ally just as good as any other method and Iraq is 1) strategically located 2) one of the most industrialized nations in the mid-east and 3) has a great deal of liquid capital. I would be surprised if US bases aren’t in Iraq for as long as we’ve been in Germany and Japan.

[ajimenez3]

25,000? That's it? That's a very low toll for 2 years of almost continuous warfare. Why are all the anti-american peace-niks crying foul? Considering the type of conflict, and the firepower involved, 25K dead is a very very low figure. Barely a blip on the radar screen as far as war-related deaths go. Hell, I think its time to take the gloves off and really make this a war. I am stunned that people are "shocked" and "surprised." Do you live in a bubble? Take the blinders off kids, this ain't no walk in the park. People die in war, and freedom is always paid for in blood. 40K children die everyday from starvation, so there really should be no concern about a mere 25,000 dead civilians over 2 years. I think if the US had to, they could tack on another 50 - 75K and would still be doing ok.

The main difference is that Americans are involved. Thes people who are wringing their hands over 25K civilians death could not be bothered with the 300K+ that died under Saddam. Seems they only care whenever Americans are involved. They where not to concerned when Hundered of thousands died in a Genocide in Africa, why becuase Americans where not there. The same can be said in the Balkans. No Americans where there. They only became concerned about civilians in the Balkans when the Americans got involved, then they where so concerned about civilian deaths. Bunch of Hypocrites.

Semper Fi