Iraq says civilian death count 150,000

[greglondon]

Iraq's health minister estimated 150,000 civilians have been killed in the war -- about three times previously accepted estimates.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/11/10/iraqis_estimate_civilian_deaths_at_150000/

The Bush Administration has consistently insisted the Iraq civilian death toll since the invasion in March 2003 is only 50,000

Another study by Iraq and US researchers put the estimate at 650,000
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20061011-07263100-bc-iraq-deathtoll.xml

Observation: even at the absolute minimum, if "only" 50,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq in the last three years, that's the same number of US military personel killed in Vietnam in all its 15 years of fighting.

Second observation: Saddam has been accused of various crimes for attacking his own civilian populations, recently being convicted to hang for some of them. The total civilian deaths he is accused of causing from 1988 until the US invaded in 2003, is in the neighborhood of 5,000 killed in a gas attack in 1988 and 30,000 killed as he put down uprisings in 1991.

[greglondon]

San Dimas High School Football Rules!

To anyone coming to this thread looking for a substantial discussion of the topic, I apologize, but none such conversation will be found. It has been almost immediately derailed by apologists to argue meaningless points of contention in minor distinctions and equivalencies. Feel free to skim the thread, but don't get your hopes up.

[aghast]

The Bush Administration has consistently insisted the Iraq civilian death toll since the invasion in March 2003 is only 50,000


even if its just 50000 thats 50000 too many - and these collateral damages are going to come back and haunt us

[robeiae]

Observation: even at the absolute minimum, if "only" 50,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq in the last three years, that's the same number of US military personel killed in Vietnam in all its 15 years of fighting.
Why is that a significant comparision? If you want to compare Iraq to Vietnam, shouldn't you compare military deaths to military deaths and civilian deaths to civilian deaths?

[aghast]

so how many civilians die in the vietnam war?

[robeiae]

Everyone argues about it--it's like trying to determine how many people Stalin killed. The answer: between 2 million and 6 million, I think. Though a few have said 7 and a few have said 1 (million).

Military casualties from both sides probably come close to 750,000, if memory serves.

[greglondon]

If you want to compare Iraq to Vietnam, shouldn't you compare military deaths to military deaths and civilian deaths to civilian deaths?

I never said those two wars were equivalent. The point is to shake people out of their complacency that 50,000 is "OK" or something. And I've said before that I think its probably more like a couple hundred thousand dead civilians.

Now, would you like to talk about what the actual death toll is? You think its 50k or 600k or somewhere in between? Maybe discuss why the Bush Administration has consistently low balled every estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq since we invaded?

[robeiae]

Second observation: Saddam has been accused of various crimes for attacking his own civilian populations, recently being convicted to hang for some of them. The total civilian deaths he is accused of causing from 1988 until the US invaded in 2003, is in the neighborhood of 5,000 killed in a gas attack in 1988 and 30,000 killed as he put down uprisings in 1991.Accused by who, exactly?

From the admittedly-biased (against Saddam) State Department: http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/19675.htm

And this says nothing of everyday acts by Saddam cronies.

[robeiae]

I never said those two wars were equivalent. The point is to shake people out of their complacency that 50,000 is "OK" or something. And I've said before that I think its probably more like a couple hundred thousand dead civilians.Then why that comparison? What's it supposed to mean? Or do you freely admit you were being duplicitous?

Now, would you like to talk about what the actual death toll is? You think its 50k or 600k or somewhere in between? Maybe discuss why the Bush Administration has consistently low balled every estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq since we invaded?Sure. Somewhere in between. Okay--they're playing politics when they lowball the estimates, so as to maintain support for the war.

What did you think I was going to say?

And your reason for highballing the estimates (and lowballing the ones about Saddam)?

[greglondon]

Then why that comparison? What's it supposed to mean? Or do you freely admit you were being duplicitous?

I am not the one decieving here. I quoted several different sources for numbers. And I said 50,000 is the number of Americans killed in Vietnam. Is that deceptive?

Sure. Somewhere in between. Okay--they're playing politics when they lowball the estimates, so as to maintain support for the war.

You talk of deception yet can't answer a straight question. Deception includes not revealing your own position, so you can play whatever is convenient at the time. "Somewhere in between" is reserving the right to choose the correct number in hindsight and say you always knew it.

Okay--they're playing politics when they lowball the estimates, so as to maintain support for the war.

Out of curiosity, at what point does "playing politics" become "duplicity" for you? Arent you saying they lied to the american public about how bad a job they were doing in an attempt to stay in power as long as possible?

I've lost count of how many times you've accused me of deception, but here you're telling me they were simply "playing politics".

You want to talk straight about behaviour regardless of who does it, or do you want to reserve the nasty words for people who disagree with you and use kid gloves when talking about those more agreeable to you?

[robeiae]

I am not the one decieving here. I quoted several different sources for numbers. And I said 50,000 is the number of Americans killed in Vietnam. Is that deceptive?
*sigh*

Your comparison seems duplicitous. Why did you make it? So people would see a "look, the same number as in Vietnam" and be moved? If not that, then why that particular comparison: Iraq Civilians v. US MIlitary in Vietnam?
You talk of deception yet can't answer a straight question. Deception includes not revealing your own position, so you can play whatever is convenient at the time. "Somewhere in between" is reserving the right to choose the correct number in hindsight and say you always knew it.So you know the actual number, then? I don't have a specific number, so I allowed for an indeterminant by accepting the range you provided. You don't even know when someone's agreeing with you...

And hindsight is your bag, not mine. We already know that.
Out of curiosity, at what point does "playing politics" become "duplicity" for you? Arent you saying they lied to the american public about how bad a job they were doing in an attempt to stay in power as long as possible?You can call it duplicitous if you want to--I suspect they merely attached themselves to the best possibility, with regard to their position--since it may very well be that they specifically know of a more exact number higher than the ones they give. Still, it doesn't seem like anyone has the real figures at this point.

I've lost count of how many times you've accused me of deception, but here you're telling me they were simply "playing politics".Then I suggest you go back and count, since this is the only time I can remember doing so.

[greglondon]

*sigh*

Your comparison seems duplicitous. Why did you make it? So people would see a "look, the same number as in Vietnam" and be moved? If not that, then why that particular comparison: Iraq Civilians v. US MIlitary in Vietnam?.

I think I already said it's to give a sense of the idea of 50,000 people killed in a war to displace the tendancy by the chickenhawks to shrug and say "no big deal". It isn't to compare this war with any other war in particular, since every war is massively different from each other. rather, its to show the number of civilians killed in this war is massive even at 50,000, never mind 150,000.

Is this concept to alien for you?

Or is there some other point to distract the conversation to some minor complaint about equivalency rather than discuss the main point about total civilians killed in Iraq?

If I found some war that had 150,000 civilians killed, would you then complain if they weren't killed by AK-47's? Or do you think for once you could drop the obstructionism and stay on point?

>And hindsight is your bag, not mine. We already know that.

I keep harping that the generals predicted exactly the war we are in now. Predicting something three different times and then having it turn out exactly that way isn't hindsight. Rumsfeld saying there was no way to expect the mess we're in now, that's ignornance. Which one are you?


You can call it duplicitous if you want to--I suspect they merely attached themselves to the best possibility, with regard to their position--since it may very well be that they specifically know of a more exact number higher than the ones they give. Still, it doesn't seem like anyone has the real figures at this point.

Attach themselves to the best possibility?
Wow. You've bent over backwards so far,
you're walking in the crab position.

Whatever. Obviously, the point here is to obstruct any real conversation and haraungue the most minor point to avoid the meat of teh discussion.

Chew that bone all you want.

[billythrilly7th]

I thought it was 650,000?

Man, it must be difficult to be a democrat.

Every week a new study comes out and you don't know which number to go with?

Like chickens with heads cut off...

"650...no, 50!....no...150 now....but later to make a point I'll use the 650 number...and then I'll say 150, but 'isn't 150 enough?!' and then at a cocktail party I'll use the 650 number with my friends when we get really riled up....but then when i'm talking to this dude I like who's conservative maybe I'll just say like '50-150' and then when I'm on the democratic underground I'll go back to the 650!"

Good stuff.

[greglondon]

I thought it was 650,000?.

Is ok, Billy, I merely attached myself to the best possible figure for my purposes. That isn't duplicity. It's just politics. So, it's OK.

Hey, at least we don't have to talk about what any of these numbers mean, Instead we just haggle over how someone arrived at their price. So much more productive that way.

No, no derailing going on here....

[dclary]

By tying military failure to loss of life, and then setting an outrageously small number as our break point, we have effectively set a precedent that will prevent the United States from ever "winning" another war again.

[aghast]

not true - you forgot about reason of war - wwii was the bloodiest war ever but no one whined about it - we didnt with korean war and afghan war and the gulf war either so while civilian death toll is an issue and we should always be concientious about keeping that number down to 0 if possible there are so many things 'wrong' about this war that makes it unpopular but pro-war people just dont get it because to them every war is the same wther it is wwii or vietnam - america will always be a military country and superpower but with that power there is a responsibility of when and where we engage in warfare and for what reason

[robeiae]

I think I already said it's to give a sense of the idea of 50,000 people killed in a war to displace the tendancy by the chickenhawks to shrug and say "no big deal".So it was a preemptive strike? Who said 50,000 deaths was "no big deal"?

It isn't to compare this war with any other war in particular, since every war is massively different from each other. rather, its to show the number of civilians killed in this war is massive even at 50,000, never mind 150,000.If your initial response was "I just knew that number (U.S. military deaths in Vietnam) and since it was almost the same as the number I was quoting, I tossed it out there; but you're right, it means nothing to compare deaths of Iraqi civilians with deaths of U.S. troops in Vietnam," I would have said okey-dokey, or something like that, and let the matter drop. Of course, I did notice this (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=913204&postcount=13). That doesn't really help you. But you keep trying to avoid saying why you picked an unrelated stat from Vietnam to make your comparison. Thus, I must assume my supposition was correct. And I'm fairly certain everyone here knows how massive 50,000 or 150,000 or 500,000 is. I'm also fairly certain that comparing these numbers to civilian deaths in Vietnam or any other major conflict involving the U.S. means something, though what it means may not serve your current agenda.

Is this concept to alien for you?A meaningless comparison? No.

Or is there some other point to distract the conversation to some minor complaint about equivalency rather than discuss the main point about total civilians killed in Iraq?What conversation? Aside from people saying "that's a lot of deaths," what did you want?

If I found some war that had 150,000 civilians killed, would you then complain if they weren't killed by AK-47's? Or do you think for once you could drop the obstructionism and stay on point?What point? That civilians have died in this war, a lot of civilians. I agreed with you, didn't I. And I accepted your range of the total without question, also agreeing with you that 50,000 was too low.

I keep harping that the generals predicted exactly the war we are in now. Predicting something three different times and then having it turn out exactly that way isn't hindsight. Rumsfeld saying there was no way to expect the mess we're in now, that's ignornance. Which one are you?Umm, you didn't make the predictions, to the best of my knowledge. So it happened the way it happened, now you're saying "See, it happened just the way these guys said it would; I knew it all along" certainly is using hindsight in the way you have presented it here. If you want to say "I've been saying this since 1991," that would be fine, though we would have to take you at your word. I'm willling to do so.

Attach themselves to the best possibility?
Wow. You've bent over backwards so far,
you're walking in the crab position.
Okay, how about: Since there were no definitive totals on casualities and many different estimates, they chose the one that made them look the best. And you're a sorry political analyst if you don't recognize that this methodology is followed by every side on pretty much every issue, when it is available. Or do I need to go line by line over the CBO records and how they have been used for the past 25 years, or so?
Whatever. Obviously, the point here is to obstruct any real conversation and haraungue the most minor point to avoid the meat of teh discussion.I don't see any meat, and I don't see any conversation, outside of the one we are having.

[robeiae]

Is ok, Billy, I merely attached myself to the best possible figure for my purposes. That isn't duplicity. It's just politics. So, it's OK.That's right. Glad you're getting something out of this.

[robeiae]

not true - you forgot about reason of war - wwii was the bloodiest war ever but no one whined about itSorry, that's completely false. Plenty of people in the United States complained about it, before and after the U.S. got involved, before and after Pearl Harbor. But there was no internet then...

[dclary]

not true - you forgot about reason of war - wwii was the bloodiest war ever but no one whined about it - we didnt with korean war and afghan war and the gulf war either so while civilian death toll is an issue and we should always be concientious about keeping that number down to 0 if possible there are so many things 'wrong' about this war that makes it unpopular but pro-war people just dont get it because to them every war is the same wther it is wwii or vietnam - america will always be a military country and superpower but with that power there is a responsibility of when and where we engage in warfare and for what reason

Aghast, for the love of god.. Please don't blurt out ignorantly. It makes me feel bad when I have to reply.

"not true - you forgot about reason of war - wwii was the bloodiest war ever but no one whined about it "

Thank you for making my own point. Like I said, we're tying our measure of failure to loss of life in Iraq. In the wars we've won, we've tied failure (or success) to physical (land) loss or gain. For WWII it was the taking of all the island atolls around the South Pacific, and then conquering Japan. In the west it was the taking of Africa, Italy, France, and then Germany. Loss of life was inconsequential as a measure of victory. Our current attitude, however, prevents us from ever waging a war like WWII again.

"pro-war people just dont get it because to them every war is the same wther it is wwii or vietnam "

Well, maybe you just know stupid pro-war people then. Donald Rumsfeld knew that not every war is the same, and that this war was significantly different -- something no one on the left wants to admit.

"But today, in the first war of the 21st century, we face an enemy that, in many ways, is unlike any our country has ever faced. We are engaged in a new and unfamiliar war that our country does not yet fully understand. One that requires us -- our country, our government, our military -- to think and act differently.

"Unlike the Cold War, our enemy today has no state, territories or citizens to protect. They murder innocent Muslim civilians by the thousands -- men, women and children alike. The enemy cannot be deterred through rational self-interest."

"Al-Qaeda’s second in command, al-Zawahiri, has said: “More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media.”

The enemy we face has skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today’s media age, but for the most part, our country and our government have not. The enemy is fast. With headline-grabbing attacks, by doctoring photographs, lying to the media, and being trained to allege torture, the enemy successfully manipulates the world’s free press -- a press that they would never allow to be free -- and they do so purposefully to intimidate and break the collective will of free peoples. We need to understand the ruthlessness, the skillfulness of this enemy."

[greglondon]

By tying military failure to loss of life, and then setting an outrageously small number as our break point, we have effectively set a precedent that will prevent the United States from ever "winning" another war again.

I'm not saying we lost because people died in a war.

SURPRISE!

I'm saying you go to war as the lesser of two evils. I supported going into afghanistan because it was a lawless nation ruled by warlords and being used as a training camp for Al Queda. The potential damage al queda could be reasonably be expected to inflict if left alone in afghanistan was pretty big. The damage we suffered by invading Afghanistan was much smaller than the damage we would have suffered if we hadn't.

There are two reasons given for invading Iraq in March 2003:

WMDS: The potential damage that WMD's could inflict on the US was huge.
Saddam: Saddam killed a bunch of his own people, tens of thousands.

The WMD argument fails because the cost of inspections were much cheaper than invasion. And all evidence says inspections were working. Also everything says that there was no link between Saddam and Al Queda, so if Saddam had WMDs, he was planning on using them on his own people and middle east neighbors, not us. The invasion can't be justified on the excuse of WMDs because the invasion has cost us thousands of american lives and trillions of dollars.

The Saddam argument (also known as the "making the world scared of democracy" (tm) argument) says that Saddam was killing his own people with WMD's and he was a brutal bastard and yada yada yada. This argument fails because in the course of the last ten years of Saddam's power, Saddam is estimated to have killed 35,000-50,000 of his own civilians. Since our invasion, the last three years of occupation has caused the deaths of several hundred thousand civilians. The argument that we invaded to stop Saddam from killing civilians fails because the invasion/occupation has killed far more civilians in far less time than Saddam ever did.

Even if we "win" in Iraq, both excuses given for the invasion fail to justify the cost of invading and the three years of occupation.

[billythrilly7th]

The argument that we invaded to stop Saddam from killing civilians fails because the invasion/occupation has killed far more civilians in far less time than Saddam ever did.


Yeah, but we really hoped it wouldn't.

"Don't be so result oriented. Be principle oriented."
William Thrilly 1984

[greglondon]

Umm, you didn't make the predictions, to the best of my knowledge. So it happened the way it happened, now you're saying "See, it happened just the way these guys said it would; I knew it all along" certainly is using hindsight in the way you have presented it here. If you want to say "I've been saying this since 1991," that would be fine, though we would have to take you at your word. I'm willling to do so.

You're going to put your back out if you keep bending over backwards like that. So we're not talking about the generals foresight or the administrations lack there of? We've only ever been talking about my personal sight? Fine.

When we were looking at going into Afghanistan, I supported it. Al Queada was known to be training there. There was no government to speak of. And a bunch of warlords had risen to fill the power vacuum. I supported going into Afghanistan.


When we started looking at invading Iraq, I opposed it. I only recently joined AW, so you'll just have to take my word on it or not. But in Feb 2003, I was telling everyone that there were no WMD's in Iraq that justified an invasion. That Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11 or Al Queda, that inspections were working (even if Saddam was playing some games, it would sort itself out), and that they were a hell of a lot cheaper way to clean up the pieces. I said invading Iraq was a completely moronic idea, and I pictured it would end up about like what Bush Senior said was the reason he DIDN"T invade in 1991.

Don't know what to tell you that'll prove any of this to you. But if you want to debate personal foresight/hindsight, that's where I was before this all started.

If you want to talk about the generals and the government, then we can look at reams of evidence that the generals had the foresight, that their plans three times came back with about what we're seeing right now. And the Bushites put their blinders on and wished for a magic victory.

If you want to talk about my personal prediction capabilities, you'll just have to take my word for it, cause no one asked for a written report from me in 2003.

[billythrilly7th]

Even if we "win" in Iraq, both excuses given for the invasion fail to justify the cost of invading and the three years of occupation.

Can you please divine for me how many Iraqi civilians would be killed in the future?

Saddam probably could go another 20 years, and then Uday would take over for another 20 years.

Conservative estimates of 25-50 thousand a year dead, not to mention the torturing multiplied by 40 and carry the 1....1 million, 2 million more in the Hussein reighn and that doesn't count Saddam doing a huge crackdown or god knows what or Saddam reconstituting his weapons proram and Uday handing off a nuke in 2024 and blowing up London killing another 1 million....

When you look at the situation from a clear minded perspective....

Anytime you can get a Saddam out of power who also has two psycopathic sons who are still young and blood thirsty, you probably ought to go ahead and do it.

Try and do it right please, but go ahead and do it.

Thank you.

[greglondon]

The argument that we invaded to stop Saddam from killing civilians fails because the invasion/occupation has killed far more civilians in far less time than Saddam ever did.

Yeah, but we really hoped it wouldn't.

The road to hell is paved with that kind of hope.

Can you please divine for me how many Iraqi civilians would be killed in the future?

Billy, Bush Senior did not invade Iraq back in 1991 for a reason. Part of that reason was civil war that would be so bad and out of control that even if we had 400,000 troops occupying the country, the generals estimated that we would not be able to keep it contained.

Do you realize how bad a civil war would have to get that half a million american troops can't contain it? The Iraqis wouldn't be throwing insults at each other, they'd be in a blood bath.

Either the generals who do this for a living have some predictive skills and their skills should be part of the decision process,

or there is no way to predict anything in war and its reasonable to expect we could send a couple squads in after Saddam and roll out 6 weeks later.

Pick whatever you want. I'm listening to the generals when it comes to planning a war, not a Ouija board.

[robeiae]

If you want to talk about my personal prediction capabilities, you'll just have to take my word for it, cause no one asked for a written report from me in 2003.Geez, do you read or what? I said I would take your word for it, if that's what you wanted to say. And I meant it.

But this doesn't make your point here, which was that I was going to engage in hindsight.

Just to be clear, you got all wound up when I pointed out that your postion was relying on hindsight, as you presented it. But you have no problem accusing me of engaging in hindsight in the future. Good to know.

[greglondon]

If you want to say "I've been saying this since 1991,"

Oop. MIssed the year. No, not since 91. I knew saddam had WMDs early on. By 2002, I wasn't sure what the state was since there was almost zero hard evidence. Fall 2002, I supported the UN and US resolutions that demanded Saddam comply with inspections and stop f-ing around, cause I knew he did, but didn't know if he still did, and the only way to know for sure was to get someone on the ground.

Christmas 2002 sucked.

Jan 2003 was looking hopeful because the inspectors were getting better access, but still had more places to go. February 2003, the inspectors were saying they were making lots of progress and so far everythign had checked out clean, but weren't yet finished. March 2003, some of the intell from Curveball (mentioned in Powell's speech) was investigated by inspectors and found to be a load of crap. And the Niger uranium was a lousy forgery. And the Aluminum tubes werent for enrichment, they were rocket fuselages.

At that point, I was convinced all the intel we had for WMD's was hooey. And all the physical evidence coming back from inspectors (including american inspectors) was that they weren't there.

At that point, invasion was too expensive an option for me. That was about the time that Bush sent us in, though.

[greglondon]

But this doesn't make your point here, which was that I was going to engage in hindsight.

My only point with that side tanget was to tell you that my predictions for how the war would turn out were in line with the general's predictions, and that my personal predictions in March 2003 were that WMD's didn't exist.

But you have no problem accusing me of engaging in hindsight in the future.

I have no idea what you're talking about. It certainly wasn't any major poitn to anything I was saying, so to prevent further squabbling about, I retract any statement I made accusing you of engaging in hindsight in the future. I apologize.