Civilian Deaths in Iraq

[lavender]

To begin what I am going to say there must be a disclaimer - for some will think I am being heartless.

Disclaimer: All civilian deaths lost needlessly during war are great tragedies.

That being said, I do not feel that the protests by individuals (outside of Iraq) for many of the civilian deaths caused by this war are thinking rationally or using reason. Iraq creatd an official policy of terrorism. Iraq created the policy of violating the laws of war and telling their troops to shed their military suits to wear civilian clothes so they could blend in. It is the policy of Iraq to allow troops to pretend to surrender and then attempt an ambush of US forces. It is Iraq that gave the suicide bomber's family 35,000.

At this point, Iraq's official military policy has become so much an egregious violation of the laws of war, that I believe Iraq no longer should have a legitimate voice at the United Nations. At the point their regime completely disassociates itself from the basic principles of the UN - as official policy, I believe politically their voice should be taken away.

Moreover, I am getting sick of hearing Iraqis as well as other nations, discuss the civilian casualties that are resulting from the Coalition forces. These civilian casualties are largely due to the way Iraq has decided to wage this war. If anything, the United States has been trying too hard to limit civilian casualties - considering the policy of the Iraqi regime.

I just wanted to vent, because I'm sick of hearing bad-mouthing of coalition forces who are bending over backwards to ensure that the people of Iraq, the prisoners of war in Iraq, are being treated as humanely as possible during times of war.

Why should the coalition forces be held accountable for a situation that the Iraqi regime created?

 

[SlowHand89]

I agree with you Lav. When given enough time, the media tends to decide (not necessarily on purpose) what they want the story to be and then report the facts to back it up. I'm sure they expected the story about civilian casualties to come up at some point and now they want to be the first to report on it. Even though the actual number of casualties is much smaller than expected(my opinion).


If the soldiers are going to dress as civilians, then the civilians should dress as soldiers. Then the soldiers would be easier to spot.

 

[Guest]

Not to mention herding women and children in front of troops as they advance.

One woman in this situation while crossing a bridge tried to break and run

The Iraqi soldiers (Saddam's crack force) shot her in the back and threw her in the river.

U.S. troops saw it happen and saved her.


(CNN tonight)

 

[Dougy]

It is all a matter of perspective. From the Iraqi point of view, this is not a 'War', but an invading army. There was no UN declaration, it is hard to muster much enthusiasm for the term 'coalition' when it includes forces from 4 countries, and the action has been a foregone conclusion since the whole Reaganite group figured out that they could exploit 9/11.

I would also say, if there were any real reason that we were there, that a certain level of civilian casualties were unavoidable, particularly when you are fighting a group that is fighting out of desperation. The fact of the matter is that there are any number of examples of the 'heroic' actions taken by Western countries in defense of their homelands. Does the fact that we are on the opposite side make it any less valid to use whatever means neccessary to evict what you see to be an invading army from your lands...to strike back at an obviously superior foe in the only way possible?

We are the Red Coats in this war, and we have to reconcile ourselves to this.

 

[teddybear4play]

Why should the coalition forces be held accountable for a situation that the Iraqi regime created?

The fact that we put such a premium on minimizing innocent deaths also, paradoxically, leads to situations such as these.

If we didn't give a fuck, then propaganda pieces of how many civilians died here or there wouldn't matter.

I also find it funny that the people who volunteered to be human shields mostly did so at places we wouldn't be bombing anyway, like orphanages. Many of them didn't realize the greivous error they had made when the Iraqis told them to stand at military targets, and when that happened, none of them had the courage to go do it.

Nobody volunteers to be a human shield on an Israeli bus to try to keep terrorists from blowing them up. Because they don't give a fuck.

TB4p

 

[Weird Harold]

Moreover, I am getting sick of hearing Iraqis as well as other nations, discuss the civilian casualties that are resulting from the Coalition forces.

I don't understand how anyone who has watched even one hour of live coverage of the bombing of Baghdad can't make the connection that we could kill a LOT of civilians if we wanted to or didn't care.

The aircrews flying over Baghdad are in much more danger than they should be because we refuse to take out anti-aircraft installations on top of civilian apartment buildings and nestled in civilian neghborhoods.

 

[cliffchuff]

Why should the coalition forces be held accountable for a situation that the Iraqi regime created?

If you set yourself up as Moral arbiters for the globe, Your behaviour must be exemplary. Buy Invading Iraq you have set yourselves up in this role and must behave Perfectly.


You cannot simply decide because the other side is not playing fair to ignor the rules, Its a tough game but you choose to play it now face the concequences, Every civillian death will count against you for at least a generation.

No one doubts the Iraquis are without honor and everyone would like to see saddam go, But in taking on the role of 'Moral Policman' for the planet you have assumed the mantle of perfection.

Unfortunately your own government is dodgy as fuck and the whole planet knows it.

 

[Lost Cause]

Oh, and the abstaining nations are....

Pillars of morality?
I want the drugs you're using, Cliffnote.
Shall we count the millions that have died due to the 'moral' leadership of the U.N.?
At least we're enlightened enough to know that with the abstaining nations, it is blood for oil, the Iraqi people's.
As in the 40's it's the US and the UK/Australians that have to defend the weaker nations, unable to muster the testicular fortitude to stand against such obvious threats.
How many Jews died because of the same mentality?
How many people have been murdered since 1948 due to inaction?

Pffft, useful idiots in every generation.....

 

[cliffchuff]

Re: Oh, and the abstaining nations are....

Pillars of morality?
I want the drugs you're using

You couldn't handle them

Shall we count the millions that have died due to the 'moral' leadership of the U.N.?

I agree lets set up a global court and try everyone under the same rules.

At least we're enlightened enough to know that with the abstaining nations, it is blood for oil, the Iraqi people's.
As in the 40's it's the US and the UK/Australians that have to defend the weaker nations, unable to muster the testicular fortitude to stand against such obvious threats.

To much testicle not enough brain




With the abstaining nations its blood for oil?

But aren't only American companies allowed contracts running the all new improved Iraq?

Oh and thank YOU for saving my grandfaters life in the second world war, very gracious of you. Though you didn't seem to give a shit about the Jews or Europe untill you got your nose bloodied.

How many people have been murdered since 1948 due to inaction?

Pffft, useful idiots in every generation

How many have been murder by action?


I wouldn't say you were useful.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

At this point, Iraq's official military policy has become so much an egregious violation of the laws of war, that I believe Iraq no longer should have a legitimate voice at the United Nations.

By starting this war, the US lost any moral right to complain about violations of international law. There's nothing that can be done about that now except deal with the consequences...

 

[Kuntmode]

To begin what I am going to say there must be a disclaimer - for some will think I am being heartless.

Disclaimer: All civilian deaths lost needlessly during war are great tragedies.

That being said, I do not feel that the protests by individuals (outside of Iraq) for many of the civilian deaths caused by this war are thinking rationally or using reason. Iraq creatd an official policy of terrorism. Iraq created the policy of violating the laws of war and telling their troops to shed their military suits to wear civilian clothes so they could blend in. It is the policy of Iraq to allow troops to pretend to surrender and then attempt an ambush of US forces. It is Iraq that gave the suicide bomber's family 35,000.

At this point, Iraq's official military policy has become so much an egregious violation of the laws of war, that I believe Iraq no longer should have a legitimate voice at the United Nations. At the point their regime completely disassociates itself from the basic principles of the UN - as official policy, I believe politically their voice should be taken away.

Moreover, I am getting sick of hearing Iraqis as well as other nations, discuss the civilian casualties that are resulting from the Coalition forces. These civilian casualties are largely due to the way Iraq has decided to wage this war. If anything, the United States has been trying too hard to limit civilian casualties - considering the policy of the Iraqi regime.

I just wanted to vent, because I'm sick of hearing bad-mouthing of coalition forces who are bending over backwards to ensure that the people of Iraq, the prisoners of war in Iraq, are being treated as humanely as possible during times of war.

Why should the coalition forces be held accountable for a situation that the Iraqi regime created?

Please refer to my thread: FUCK UP LAVENDER

 

[Linedrive]

Re: Re: Oh, and the abstaining nations are....

Oh and thank YOU for saving my grandfaters life in the second world war, very gracious of you. Though you didn't seem to give a shit about the Jews or Europe untill you got your nose bloodied.

A distinction should be made between reports on specific mass-murder incidents and reports on genocide. Information regarding mass murders of Jews began to reach the free world soon after these actions began in the Soviet Union in late June 1941, and the volume of such reports increased with time. The early sources of information include German police reports intercepted by British intelligence; local eyewitnesses and escaped Jews reporting to underground, Soviet, or neutral sources; and Hungarian soldiers on home leave, whose observations were reported by neutral sources.

Don't insinuate we sat around while masses of jews were being exterminated to our knowledge. Considering the state of the US military in the 1930's, we were in no position to go embarking on military adventures elsewhere. If you want to put the blame of the extermination of jews and Europeans prior to US involvement, point the finger at Chamberlain, Douldier, Hitler, and the one's responsible for it.

 

[cliffchuff]

Re: Re: Re: Oh, and the abstaining nations are....

A distinction should be made between reports on specific mass-murder incidents and reports on genocide. Information regarding mass murders of Jews began to reach the free world soon after these actions began in the Soviet Union in late June 1941, and the volume of such reports increased with time. The early sources of information include German police reports intercepted by British intelligence; local eyewitnesses and escaped Jews reporting to underground, Soviet, or neutral sources; and Hungarian soldiers on home leave, whose observations were reported by neutral sources.

Don't insinuate we sat around while masses of jews were being exterminated to our knowledge. Considering the state of the US military in the 1930's, we were in no position to go embarking on military adventures elsewhere. If you want to put the blame of the extermination of jews and Europeans prior to US involvement, point the finger at Chamberlain, Douldier, Hitler, and the one's responsible for it.

I didn't insinuate anything.

Lost cause did, I was responding to his insinuation.

Please read thread carefully

 

[Linedrive]

Re: Re: Oh, and the abstaining nations are....

Though you didn't seem to give a shit about the Jews or Europe untill you got your nose bloodied.

My mistake, I thought the above quote was meant to say we sat around with full knowledge of the ongoing holocaust against the jews, and did nothing. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but the reports as I mentioned didn't even start hitting the west until the weeks after the Germans invaded Russia, the summer of 1941. We were attacked in Hawaii six months later and went to war. Even if we had full knowledge of the events going on, with the state of the US Military it would've taken months and months to plan and execute help. By that time we were attacked and the choice was made. It wasn't until 1942 that the true nature of the entire operation to exterminate the jews started to truly be exposed.

 

[cliffchuff]

just a minor point if the military was in such a state, how were you able to respond so quickly once you were attacked?

was it that resorces were diverted to this end?

If so could they have not been diverted earlier?

Prehaps the reason the military was in a state was there was no reason to get the military ready untill what was percieved as public interest was raised?

semantics I know.

 

[Lost Cause]

Two partial reasons...

Lend lease.

Neutrality legislation, enacted from 1935 to 1937, prohibited trade with or credit to any of the warring nations. Neutrality was also the initial American response to the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939.

With the fall of France and the air war against Britain in 1940, the debate intensified between those who favored aiding the democracies and the isolationists. In the end, the interventionist argument won. The United States joined Canada in a Mutual Board of Defense, and aligned with the Latin American republics in extending collective protection to the nations in the Western Hemisphere. Congress voted immense sums for rearmament and in early 1941 approved the Lend-Lease Program, which enabled President Roosevelt to transfer arms and equipment to any nation (notably Great Britain, the Soviet Union and China) deemed vital to the defense of the United States. The 1940 presidential election yielded another majority for Roosevelt and for the first time in U.S. history, a president was elected to a third term.


America First movement:

Drawing on his experiences and observations during four or five years abroad (1935-1939) in Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, Charles Lindbergh provided Americans with a portrait of the European war that differed substantially from the one conceived by the Roosevelt administration and by so-called interventionists in the United States. He did not see the conflict as basically a war for democracy or morality. He was skeptical of the ideology and moral righteousness of the British and French. He conceived of morality in international affairs as relative to time, place, circumstances, and power. His approach was, in effect, more understanding of the Germans and more skeptical of the Allies than the conventional view in the United States. Lindbergh saw a divided responsibility for the origins of the European war, rather than an assignment of the total blame to Hitler, Nazi Germany, and the Axis states. He did not view Germany, Britian, and France as implacable foes with irreconcilable differences that could be resolved only by war; he saw them all as parts of Western civilization.

 

[sexy-girl]

i do agree with part of what you are saying about the way iraq has been fighting this war

but i also think that the coalition is paying for failing to get UN backing (for whatever reason) i think it could of been easier to fight the war on a propaganda stand point if they had UN backing


i am really confused by this war and i don't beileve anything we're hearing ... we're learn more about how this war was faught maybe 1 or 2 years after its over

 

[MissTaken]

Why should the coalition forces be held accountable for a situation that the Iraqi regime created?

I dont' always agree with you, lavey, but to this end, I must give you a hearty "Right on!"

Iraq had the power to prevent the war.
They have the power to dictate how the war is fought.

Yet, they bitch and moan at civilian casualities, which is ironic in and of itself. How many Iraqi civilians have died at the hands of the Iraqi government?

 

[Gil_Favor]

Damn.

I agree with Lavander.

 

[bluespoke]

Damn.

I agree with Lavander.

Frightening isn't it!

 

[Gil_Favor]

Frightening isn't it!

Indeed

 

[Ladybird]

Lavender I applaude and agree with you.

I also admire the courage and strength of conviction that it takes to turn your back on popular sentiment, and to stand for what you believe.

You've echoed my feelings also. How dare a nation put it's civilians at risk, and then cry when they are killed or injured.

 

[cliffchuff]

Re: Oh, and the abstaining nations are....

As in the 40's it's the US and the UK/Australians that have to defend the weaker nations, unable to muster the testicular fortitude to stand against such obvious threats.
How many Jews died because of the same mentality?
How many people have been murdered since 1948 due to inaction?

lost causes original quote.

'Though you didn't seem to give a shit about the Jews or Europe untill you got your nose bloodied' My reply.

He was saying that We (The English) allowed Jews to die, when in actual fact we went to War long before we were aware of the facts reguarding Jewish genocide, where The USA DID have knowelage of this (for at least six months by your own admission) before they got involved , because they were not ready for war (untill they got attacked when they got ready very quickly indeed)

 

[busybody..]

It should be noted that Israel has been going thru this for YEARS.....

And yet they get REPUDIATION in the press as well as from the State Dept.......

Why???????

 

[cliffchuff]

because killing children seems wrong for some reason