Sanctions killed 34.5 Iraqi civilians since my last post in this thread. War killed 4.5 in the same time span.
Lovely statistics.
New:
The US may have drafted them, but who else voted for them?
Are you telling me that the UN sanctions were a unilateral US action?
I'm telling you that your analogy of comparing pest and colera is flawed.
Continued sanctions are not the only alterantive to this war. The war was never initiated to abolish the sanctions. these are the facts.
The fact is also that both sanctions and war are results of US initiated policies.
You seem to want to blame others for the sanctions. They are just as much US foreign policy as this war. Luckily the UN thought different this time.
And remember, these are only direct civilian casualties. The humanitarian effects remain to be seen. In addition; most likely several hundred iraqi soldiers are killed every day. Making the war way more deadly than the sanctions for the iraqi population as a whole.
And then there are the material and environmental damages of the war.
So we went from bad US-initiated policy supported by the SC, to worse US-initiated policy. NOT supported by the SC...
You seem to want to blame others for the sanctions. They are just as much US foreign policy as this war. Luckily the UN thought different this time.
"others"? Are we not part of the UN anymore?
I'm pretty sure that when I criticize UN policy that the US had a direct hand in making I'm criticizing the US's role in it. Along with the UK's and Zimbabwe's. But I don't necessarily feel like running down a roll call of the UN member states when I criticize a Security Council decision.
In the Security Council it takes 8 of 15 with no vetos to tango, lest you forget how the sanctions regime was implemented and enforced.
As far as the war being worse than sanctions. If 12 years after the war has started you can attribute 1.2 million deaths to it I will agree with you.
I guess what's been killing all those people and keeping their infrastructure from rebuilding in the 12 years since the Gulf War is the chupacabra, not the sanctions.
Sanctions killed 34.5 Iraqi civilians since my last post in this thread. War killed 4.5 in the same time span.
Lovely statistics.
New:
The US may have drafted them, but who else voted for them?
Are you telling me that the UN sanctions were a unilateral US action?
The following exchange (about the sanctions) between Lesley Stahl and former Secretary of State Mrs. Madeleine Albright is worth recalling:
Lesley Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
It's also why there are more civilian deaths than necessary.
I clearly stated that 'collateral damage' is expected. I don't expect zero civilian casualities. That's a false argument to make on your part.
'Precision bombing' in a city doesn't really exist as you claim.
Yes it does exist as I claim. That is why we are looking at a few hundred civilian deaths instead of many thousand. Think a bit Bunge. How many would have died if we were using non-guided, non-precision missiles? Are you tring to tell me the numbers would be the same? If so you are stupider than I give you credit for.
Yes it does exist as I claim. That is why we are looking at a few hundred civilian deaths instead of many thousand. Think a bit Bunge. How many would have died if we were using non-guided, non-precision missiles? Are you tring to tell me the numbers would be the same? If so you are stupider than I give you credit for.
I'm thinking of a war with less bombs. We as a nation have to be willing to lose ten soldiers for ever one civilian we kill, not the reverse. If that price is too high, then the war isn't worth it. With a just cause there would be no question that the loss of military life would be worth it.
I'm thinking of a war with less bombs. We as a nation have to be willing to lose ten soldiers for ever one civilian we kill, not the reverse. If that price is too high, then the war isn't worth it. With a just cause there would be no question that the loss of military life would be worth it.
No, we do not have to be willing to do that. We have to be willing to see the war through to ultimate completion, and we need to be sure that we do it while killing as few non-combatants as possible and while losing a few soldiers as possible. War does not carry the same morality as day to day life. There is a code that one should follow which is to try like heck to not kill those that are not the enemy. However, you do not do so at the risk of your own life, if you do, you will almost assuredly lose that war.
Comments
Originally posted by NoahJ
This is a tried and true military strategy. It is the reason why the first Gulf War ended so quickly.
It's also why there are more civilian deaths than necessary.
I clearly stated that 'collateral damage' is expected. I don't expect zero civilian casualities. That's a false argument to make on your part.
'Precision bombing' in a city doesn't really exist as you claim.
As to who is responsible, I presonally hold Bush and his goons responsible for every single person killed in this war. Both US, UK, iraqi and other...
ok, so let me get this straight. so if Saddam decides to blow up a marketplace to make us look bad, that's our fault?
woo hoo, my list just doubled in size!!!
Originally posted by alcimedes
ok, so let me get this straight. so if Saddam decides to blow up a marketplace to make us look bad, that's our fault?
woo hoo, my list just doubled in size!!!
If it was part of this war, yes I blame Bush, that doesn't exclude me from blaming Saddam as well.
Lovely statistics.
New:
The US may have drafted them, but who else voted for them?
Are you telling me that the UN sanctions were a unilateral US action?
Originally posted by groverat
Sanctions killed 34.5 Iraqi civilians since my last post in this thread. War killed 4.5 in the same time span.
Whoops, you lying again? We already went over this. Sanctions don't kill.
Originally posted by groverat
Sanctions killed 34.5 Iraqi civilians since my last post in this thread. War killed 4.5 in the same time span.
Lovely statistics.
New:
The US may have drafted them, but who else voted for them?
Are you telling me that the UN sanctions were a unilateral US action?
I'm telling you that your analogy of comparing pest and colera is flawed.
Continued sanctions are not the only alterantive to this war. The war was never initiated to abolish the sanctions. these are the facts.
The fact is also that both sanctions and war are results of US initiated policies.
You seem to want to blame others for the sanctions. They are just as much US foreign policy as this war. Luckily the UN thought different this time.
And remember, these are only direct civilian casualties. The humanitarian effects remain to be seen. In addition; most likely several hundred iraqi soldiers are killed every day. Making the war way more deadly than the sanctions for the iraqi population as a whole.
And then there are the material and environmental damages of the war.
So we went from bad US-initiated policy supported by the SC, to worse US-initiated policy. NOT supported by the SC...
Rolleyes indeed...
Whoops, you lying again? We already went over this. Sanctions don't kill.
Sanctions don't kill, malnutrition, decimated infrastructure, horrible infant mortality rates and disease do!
You're like Heston!
bunge knows more about sanctions than the UN.
new:
You seem to want to blame others for the sanctions. They are just as much US foreign policy as this war. Luckily the UN thought different this time.
"others"? Are we not part of the UN anymore?
I'm pretty sure that when I criticize UN policy that the US had a direct hand in making I'm criticizing the US's role in it. Along with the UK's and Zimbabwe's. But I don't necessarily feel like running down a roll call of the UN member states when I criticize a Security Council decision.
In the Security Council it takes 8 of 15 with no vetos to tango, lest you forget how the sanctions regime was implemented and enforced.
As far as the war being worse than sanctions. If 12 years after the war has started you can attribute 1.2 million deaths to it I will agree with you.
I'm keeping a running tally.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net <-- they are a great help to me
Originally posted by groverat
bunge knows more about sanctions than the UN.
Thanks for the compliment, but I think I probably just know more than you or Heston though.
Originally posted by groverat
Sanctions killed 34.5 Iraqi civilians since my last post in this thread. War killed 4.5 in the same time span.
Lovely statistics.
New:
The US may have drafted them, but who else voted for them?
Are you telling me that the UN sanctions were a unilateral US action?
The following exchange (about the sanctions) between Lesley Stahl and former Secretary of State Mrs. Madeleine Albright is worth recalling:
Lesley Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."
[60 Minutes (5/12/96)]
Thats like saying "Since your arm is brroken we might just as well chop of your leg."
Stupidest pro-war argument ever...
Even Rumsfeld makes more sense with his democratic-iraq rant...
Even Blair, still talking about about WOMD makes a better case...
Groverat is using the sanctions as an argument for the war.
Thats like saying "Since your arm is brroken we might just as well chop of your leg."
Yeah, it's just like that except chopping off your leg won't heal your arm. But this war will get rid of sanctions.
But other than the fact that your analogy is totally off-the-mark and stupid you're completely right.
Originally posted by groverat
New:
Yeah, it's just like that except chopping off your leg won't heal your arm. But this war will get rid of sanctions.
But other than the fact that your analogy is totally off-the-mark and stupid you're completely right.
there is a difference between stoping the sanctions and healing them.
to heal them, you'd have to bring back 500.000 dead...
stupid
Originally posted by bunge
It's also why there are more civilian deaths than necessary.
I clearly stated that 'collateral damage' is expected. I don't expect zero civilian casualities. That's a false argument to make on your part.
'Precision bombing' in a city doesn't really exist as you claim.
Yes it does exist as I claim. That is why we are looking at a few hundred civilian deaths instead of many thousand. Think a bit Bunge. How many would have died if we were using non-guided, non-precision missiles? Are you tring to tell me the numbers would be the same? If so you are stupider than I give you credit for.
Originally posted by NoahJ
Yes it does exist as I claim. That is why we are looking at a few hundred civilian deaths instead of many thousand. Think a bit Bunge. How many would have died if we were using non-guided, non-precision missiles? Are you tring to tell me the numbers would be the same? If so you are stupider than I give you credit for.
I'm thinking of a war with less bombs. We as a nation have to be willing to lose ten soldiers for ever one civilian we kill, not the reverse. If that price is too high, then the war isn't worth it. With a just cause there would be no question that the loss of military life would be worth it.
Originally posted by groverat
But this war will get rid of sanctions.
Did we really need war to get rid of the sanctions?
Statistic update:
Iraq:
589 civilian deaths
unknown military deaths (probably between 5000 - 10000)
US/UK
75 military deaths (13 missing)
Originally posted by murbot
New is getting Old.
I think this is the first political post EVER I have ever seen written by you, hulking mod. It is kind of a surprise, to say the least.
Originally posted by New
US/UK
75 military deaths (13 missing)
Too bad most of those deaths are from friendly fire and remarkably unreliable helicopters.
Originally posted by bunge
I'm thinking of a war with less bombs. We as a nation have to be willing to lose ten soldiers for ever one civilian we kill, not the reverse. If that price is too high, then the war isn't worth it. With a just cause there would be no question that the loss of military life would be worth it.
No, we do not have to be willing to do that. We have to be willing to see the war through to ultimate completion, and we need to be sure that we do it while killing as few non-combatants as possible and while losing a few soldiers as possible. War does not carry the same morality as day to day life. There is a code that one should follow which is to try like heck to not kill those that are not the enemy. However, you do not do so at the risk of your own life, if you do, you will almost assuredly lose that war.