Iraq Body Count at 25,000

The Iraq Body Count recently surpassed 25,000 verified fatalities with estimated fatalities topping the 100,000 mark.

I just wanted to remind folks that while 30 innocent people have been killed in London, the U.S. has a meat grinder in Iraq that's doing ten times that daily. Both are tragic.

~Ulrika~

While I agree there is also (so I hear) an Iraqi Memorial in SL that people are free to visit as well.

Ulrika, you clearly haven't been paying attention.

We fight the "terrorists" in Iraq so that we don't have to defend people at home. Aside from the fact that global terrorism has increased every year that George Bush has been President (and decreased every year Clinton was President) and that London was attacked today, it is clearly working.

While I am saddened by the fact that so many have died in Iraq both innocent and militant I will say that my lack of friends and loved ones in the community and the reasoning for why there is even a war there is somewhat valid makes it a little less hard to get teary eyed about. Both in 9/11 and todays events I have had friends and family in those areas and/or were near the locations myself. Noone cares if your parents die....but you do.

While I don't agree with all of my governments foreign policy decisions, I don't see any reason why you should throw that in the face of everyone from New York, London, or Madrid who were reminded despite their blue state views, they are no longer safe on their commute to work. If you want to bitch about American policy do it at the expense of the Midwest and stop pouring salt in the wounds of people who agree with you. Makes me sad that you would be so insensitive to New Yorkers.

Satchmo, I don't believe Ulrika was throwing it in the face of anyone in New York or Madrid or even London. And it is certainly not a red state/blue state issue...or don't you care about the Oklahoma City bombings?

I think the point is more that it's easy to get upset over a fresh tragedy like the London bombings, but that we should be just as upset, if not more so, about a continued tragedy (war always being tragic, whether you agree about our position in Iraq or not).

I think what I meant to say is I'm insensitive to everything but new yorkers... open mouth, insert foot.

Does this number include all the Iraqi citizens being killed by insurgents (suicide bombings, car bombings, etc..) or is this number specifically civilians that have died at the hands of US and allied forces?

I'm referring to civilians only.

I took this quote from Ellie Edo's post in another thread, as it provides some links.



~Ulrika~

... But those children were sinners.

That didn't answer my question. I know the number is civilians - I asked if the death count includes only those killed by the US, or killed overall - including the attacks by insurgents.

I believe it's including insurgent attacks (and possibly insurgents who are dragged to a hospital without a uniform or gun), Cristiano.

...

Putting numbers in perspective, annually:

About 3,200,000 people were injured in car accidents and 41,345 lost their lives
38% of car accident fatalities involved alcohol
4,695 pedestrians were killed in auto accidents
63% of car accident fatalities were attributed to passengers who were not wearing a seat belt.

570,000 Americans die of cancer.

1 million Americans have AIDS, only 17,000 die a year due to medical advances.
Globally, 39 million live with aids, with 3 million dying a year. - note that the US death rate is about 2% while global is 8%.
1/3 of the population in many parts of Africa are infected with AIDS.

In developing countries, 6 million children die each year, mostly from hunger-related causes.

...

Imagine if $80bil a year that is currently going to the Iraq War was put toward solving one of these problems.

------

Ulrika... the same site you post from sets a minimum and maximum. The maximum is closer to 26,000, not 100,000. Please do not choose two conflicting sources of statistics and state them both as true.

How many people were tortured and kills under the Saddam Hussein? How many females were taken from there homes and raped by Saddam Hussein’s Son and then feed to his lion? How many people were gassed in a test of chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein’s military? How many families in Palestine were given Oil for Food money by Saddam Hussein for there love ones act of suicide bombing Israelis? How many people were killed by Saddam Hussein’s Government for speaking ill about Saddam Hussein or his government?


The reason London is more of a problem then Iraq is really a simple one. I would go as fare as saying it is even worse then 9/11. How many of us live in Iraq? How many of use are going to go to Iraq? How many of use have family in Iraq (I do)? How many of use lived in NY on 9/11? How many of us had family in NY? How many people here live by a MAJOR city? How many people here live in a major City by a Major building?

OK now for round two:
How many people here live by train and/or buss routs? How many people here take trains and/or busses on a monthly bases? Weekly? Daily?

Iraq is fare from most of us.
9/11 was a Major City and a Major Building. Most of use do not have this problem.
7/7 was something most of have used or do use. It also telling you that they are willing to move the attack to a more personal way. If they took and drove a car on to any major High way with heavy commuter traffic (Chicago, LA, NY to just name the big 3 in the US) then set off a bomb right on a bridge (here every day I am on the High way going under a different highway). How many people would die? How many people would stop going to work? That is true terror. 9/11 did nothing to terries me, it just made me mad. 7/7 scared the piss out of me.

Yeah, I have similar questions as Cristiano. I kind of doubt that this number includes ONLY casualties on Iraqi citizens by US and allied forces, though I could be wrong. Assuming that, it would be interesting to have a breakdown of...

1) How many Iraqis killed by US/ally forces. Then a breakdown (which would be rather fuzzy to say the least) of those who were noncombtants killed in proximity to military action (collateral damage), innocents killed by accident, and enemy combatants killed by US forces. The first and second groups I have the greatest sympathy for, the majority of the third, given their tactics and the government they wish to have, I have none.

2) How many Iraqis killed by other Iraqis, then seperating out the losses from the "insurgents", the new government's security forces, and bystandsers.

Can't see the Albright video from work, and I'm a little leery about the 500,000 children dead from sanctions number but whatever the true number it was likely VERY bad. Now, getting into a comparative body count game misses a lot of the issues, but, from my standpoint, the potential casualties of war (and potential for a democratic government, though not inevitable), while bad, was not as bad as compared to the status quo of sanctions without the possible (however slight) benefit of a better government.

Now, the immediate casualties of war balanced againt an alternate policy of completely lifting sanctions changes the simple body count equation. It raises other issues of security down the road, but as long as Saddam's minions didn't throw a celebration/comeupance right after the cessation of sanctions, that would likely be the least damaging in terms of loss of life in the near term.

I mention this cause I hear a lot from the other side that yeah sure Saddam was a bastard, but war is bad. For the anti-war group, I'm curious what the preferred alternative was, keeping Saddam in a box with sanctions that have severe side effects on the innocent, or removing the sanctions cage and risk facing a potential conflict later? Or another option I'm not seeing? Yeah, I'm pro-war, but I'm not trying to bait or condescend with this question. The options are only clear cut if the risks associated with each outcome are a certainty. Those risks however are unknown, and I might weight the risk/rewards differently than others which leads to divergent opinions that rational folks can understand but still disagree with on an equal level. Or is the general position of the peace crowd from arguments of principle overweighting the practical? Or are the views really case by case with no clear majority view for an alternative? Just trying to find a common starting ground for discussion, other than the hollow slogans from the left or the right.

So...umm..are you actually trying to say that the "U.S. meatgrinder" has killed all those 25,000 people.

Seems to me that those little guys running into police stations with backpack bombs might get a wee bit pissed at your trying to steal their credit.

Oh...but I'm sure it's all an american x-files-style plot (like how we flew our own planes into our own Trade Center, planes that were piloted by G'dubs and Cheney...of course). In this case, all the homocide bombers are actually U.S. soldiers...right?

Just because several folks have used this argument i would like to point out what illogical crap it is.

If you invade a country with the goal of conquering it through aggression, pretty much every casualty that results from any source is the "fault" of the invader. By deciding to invade another sovereign country, the US must at the very least accept responsibility for the consequences until such time as it becomes and independent state again.

There would be no "insurgents" for instance without the occupation.

Until it is free, Iraq is essentially conquered territory and the complete responsibilty of the occupying army.

All deaths are therefore the US's "fault" (if you want to use that word).

.

First, LMFAO@ that quote.

Second, that 25k also includes the children that are sent out to war by their nice little Iraqi parents. Put in cars as decoys as someone presses the button to blow them up. That is what makes me sick.

Don't forget, as far as the apologists are concerned, it doesn't matter, it's ALL the fault of the US.

As far as the 500,000 dead because of sanctions.. ahhh gee, let's ignore the fact, the FACT, the fact that they died because Saddam preferred to spend the countries money on himself and his palaces and statues than actually providing for the Iraqis. Yeah, lets just forget about the FACT that he invaded another country, overran it, murdered indiscriminently and pludered and looted all he could. Let's just forget that unpleasant part.

And sure, let's not forget, if we all just crawl on our bellies and say we're sorry for being us, pull out of everywhere and give in to all the terrorists insane demands, stop all funding to our military, hell disband our military, and turn over that money to feed the world, if the terrorists agree to that of course, then peace will reign for all.

/sarcasm off

So by your logic...wait your logic fails.
Why are the bombers targeting mainly Iraqi civilians, if they want the U.S. out. The U.S says that it will leave when stability happens...why then would they not wait, let things cool off, then start it up again after the troops leave? Or better, why not show love and try very hard to avoid civ casualities, yet intensly target the foreign invaders? If the TERRORISTS (not insurgents, not freedom fighters, not partizans, not muslim extremists), stoppped the homocide bombings today, and left (since many are from OUTSIDE iraq) or simply laid down their arms, how many deaths do you think would happen next week? Not many. Do a little search on the number of Iraqis killed in action by coalition soldiers vs. Iraqis killed by terrorists...
I do agree with you on one point, Iraq is essentially conquered territory and the complete responsibilty of the occupying army. Only, we cannot do anything to the forces that are targeting the civilian populace...we jail them, we're torturers...we hunt them, we're inciting violence...
Funny, in the years to come, elements in our society will even bitch about our leaving Iraq.
Because we are the U.S...the world's token bad guy.

Well in response to that I would say that I like oranges.
Also, it's rainiing where I am.
What's it like there?

.

He he...HAWT like 95 or 97. And oranges do taste the bestest!

Ok Diane, I'm willing to buy that the US has to accept some responsibility for even attacks by "insurgents", the US tore down a rather brutal but somewhat orderly regime to hopefully build a somewhat orderly democratic government, but with a lot of disorder in transition. Accepting that the US is on the hook for it in some way does not lessen the fault of others, blame is rarely so one-sided. To hold the insurgents completely blameless only really works if one assume the US really is the root of all evil. If that is the opposing position, then Iraq is irrelevant, a symptom, the real disagreement is a lot deeper.

But claiming the US has killed 25,000 Iraqis and equating it to a meat grinder is a bit over the top when a sizable portion of those casualties are inflicted by reacting forces, forces that are fighting a democratically elected (but still young and flawed) Iraqi government in addition to the US, and seeming focusing more on the former than the latter.

As for historical parallels, my mind is stuck thinking in terms of WW2, and I'd rather not go there at the moment. I like to tread very carefully when any example could even be remotely interpreted as a violation of Godwin's law.

#1 USA is not the only country there.
#2 We are not there to conquer any thing.
#3 Who do we blame for the death by Sodom Hussein’s Government? Could we blame them? Yes, should we? Yes, all of it? No! We let it happen and we did nothing so we could be blamed for all the deaths from that too.
#4 The Government of Iraq wants the USA and allies there. The Iraq government has said that insurgents are not Iraq but out sides, so invaders that are trying to conquer Iraq, so maybe we should blame all deaths on them??

First , I dont support the war in Iraq - I dont agree witht he motivations behind it. I dont agree with how it was "appologized for". I dont like people are dying over there, it is tragic.

But -

The war is no excuse for terrorists to make attacks like just happened in London. Even if Iraqi civilains get killed , it is no excuse.

Many of the insurgents are terrorists and linked / trained by fundamentalist and Al Queda. That is a fact , just like many of the resistance to the Soviets in Afghanstan were the predecesors to these.

Is a simple fact that the Radical Fundamentalists want the United States to leave the Middle East, most notably they want the US and our allies (mostly Brittain) to stop -

-Supporting Isreal
-Supporting the Suadi's regime in Arabia
-Fighting in Afgahnistan
-Fighting in Iraq

their methods are deplorable. Their Motivations arent nearly as pure as "drive out the infidels" as they claim. It really boils down to Political and Economic power. They want peopel who think like them to run the governments of the middle east and control its oil.

Its religeous and ethnic nationalism the fundamentalists want.

DR. Kissinger did a very good article on this in Time magazine, how the war in Iraq is a war against the militant fundamentalists.

One reason the foriegn components to the opposition in Iraq is there , is becuase thast the best place to kill Americans and make America look bad. Since civilian casualties are never totally unavoidable. Also if they kill civilains they know America and her allies will be blamed in Global opinion. Global opinion being a pressure to make America lose resolve.

Certianly there are native Iraqi's that are fighting America also. Its their country. They dont care one bit about global politics. They dont beleive that the forigners who are helping them are terrorists, they just want aggressors to leave. Many will be too short sighted to see what might happen tho when they go.

Its a very real danger the Mid-East would turn into a series of Islamic Fundamentalist states were the US and allies to leave. Iraq of course probably the most shaky right now. The Saudi's also without our help would be over thrown.

It is said that the war is about Oil. And that people think there should be no Blood For Oil. They say if we just give up this need for Oil then we can leave the Mid East and the peopel there will be irrelevant.

But - think a moment about the flip side of that. What would it be like if we had only hositle states we had no influence over in control of all the mid east's oil?

Would anyone like to hazard a guess how many people world-wide would die if the US had to cut farm production by say %25 becuase of lack of oil? How about if developing nations couldnt get oil for THEIR farm machinery?

I dont really think the problems in the Mid East can be solved by the US at the end of a gun. I think there needs to be some solution the United Nations and Nato and other stabel countries can come up with to defuse tensions, help the Mid-east stabilize and build peacefully. Work on helping their average citizens, reduce the drive for some of them to become radical fundamentalist killers.

The United States completely leaving the Mid East with its current Islamic fundamentalist upswing could prove extremely dangerous to people who have never even seen a Koran.

I should add, setting aside whether the war was wise or right or not, it is because we hold a fair share of responsibility for the violence in Iraq that we stick it out until the Iraqis can get the one significant reward for all this, a functioning democratic society. Or until they decide we should get the hell out, and the "insurgents" aren't in the majority for that decision, not yet anyway.