Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    15
    Here is a question that I would like some of the pro-war people to answer:

    What level of civilian casualties would be too much? In other words I think everyone would agree that if 15 million civilians were going to die in this war with Iraq, then the war would not be justified. 15 million people are not going to die, that is ridiculous. However there are some civilians that are going to die. How many civilians is too much?

    Do not respond to this post unless you are willing to post a specific figure. If no pro-war people post then I will assume that you have all changed your minds about the war.

    Here are your choices:
    1 Civilian
    10 civilians
    100 civilians
    500 civilians
    1000 civilians
    5000 civilians
    10,000 civilians
    50,000 civilians
    100,000 civilians
    200,000 civilians
    300,000 civilians
    400,000 civilians
    500,000 civilians
    1 million civilians
    2 million civilians
    The whole population of Iraq

    A specific figure please.

    I know that some people are going to respond and say that Saddam is killing civilians. Ok then. How many civilians being killed in this war justifies the end of preventing Saddam from killing civilians.

  2. #2
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    Nice wording - you have proposed a loaded question.

    So let me ask this.

    How many innocent civilians should have died before the USA took action:

    1 Civilian
    10 civilians
    100 civilians
    500 civilians
    1000 civilians
    5000 civilians
    10,000 civilians
    50,000 civilians
    100,000 civilians
    200,000 civilians
    300,000 civilians
    400,000 civilians
    500,000 civilians
    1 million civilians
    2 million civilians
    The whole population of Iraq

    Chet

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador Sam Bay's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,603
    I don't see much difference between civilians and soldiers. And the misconception is, civilians usually called "innocent". That makes the soldiers "guilty" of something, which they're not. Wearing uniforms, and doing what they're ordered to do, doesn't make them "guilty" in my book.

    The guilty people are war mongers, war profiteers, Bush & Co., Saddam & Co., perpetratos of 9/11 who also planned this war to happen, etc.

    And they're far from being killed, yet.

    Another thing is numbers, 1, 3, 5, 150, 400. All of this numbers are "lives". As dear as yours and mine. Sad thing is, it just become "numbers", or "casualties" or "collateral damage" to you if it's not yours or your loved one.

  4. #4
    ABW Veteran Student Heyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    5,482
    I'm going to be as honest as I can here but it's hard to answer your question so I have a few answers with explanations for each one.

    1. I'll start with 1000 proven innocent civilians make this war a price I didn't intend to pay.

    2. If the "innocent civilian" is a soldier as you have so conveniently lumped them all together than I'll move my answer to 500,000 because you and I have a very different view of what's innocent.

    3. If the were to shift into a more dangerous mode where saddam had a nuclear weapon and or biological, chemical weapons and fired them, not threatened to but actually used them I would change my answer to the entire population of Iraq in the self interest of protection my country and our interests.

  5. #5
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    346
    I don't see how this question can be answered. The decision to wage war is a judgement call inevitably based on incomplete information. One of the many, many factors involved is the likely number of civilian Iraqi casualties; a number which is hard to estimate, even after the event. Do you mean violent deaths, or will you also include later deaths from disease or possible in-fighting between the different post-Saddam factions? Do you take account of civilian deaths arising from lack of action by the US? Too many ifs and buts.

  6. #6
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    15
    "How many innocent civilians should have died before the USA took action" ... the point is mute because you can't save the iraqi people by bombing them. The notion of saving people by killing them is a bit twisted really.

    Heyder thank you for answering my question. My point is that Bush and Blair say that some innocent civilians will be killed in the war ... and kind of brush it off as though it is nothing. I don't think it is nothing.

    I also disagree with you on Iraqi soldiers dying because really are they so guilty as you think. Yes, Saddam and his top cronies who have done evil acts deserve to die, but ordinary soldiers are probably just trying to defend themselves ... just like the US and british soldiers ... they haven't watched CNN, and don't have the perspective that we have. So in my view many of the Iraqi soldiers are 'innocent' in one perspective.

    MJCB I agree that it is based on incomplete information, but here's my point. Do you think that Bush/Blair could have made a reasonable estimate of the casualties before hand? Yes they could have. But I doubt they did because could they really live with themselves knowing that innocent people are dying? The only way for the human mind to deal with this issue and continue to fight the war is to ignore it and not face the facts of what you are really doing.

  7. #7
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> the point is mute because you can't save the iraqi people by bombing them. The notion of saving people by killing them is a bit twisted really.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Nice set up, sir. You pretend to be asking a sincere question, but it turns out to be bait to attack the very people in favor of liberating the Iraqi people. That was kind of twisted.

    Anyways, my answer is: as many as it takes.

  8. #8
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Other "dirty tricks" possibly awaiting ground forces involve Republican Guard members catching coalition troops off guard while pretending to surrender.

    And intelligence reports indicated Iraqi forces - either Republican Guard or Fedayeen Saddam terrorists - in and around Basra were dressing up as U.S. soldiers, then accepting the surrender of other Iraqi soldiers and executing them, senior Defense officials told Fox News.

    The Pentagon condemned such maneuvers as violations of the rules of war and the acts of a desperate regime.

    "The regime has committed acts of treachery on the battlefield, dressing their forces as liberated civilians and sending soldiers out waiving white flags ... with the goal of drawing coalition forces into the ambushes, using Red Cross vehicles to courier military instructions," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said.

    _____________________
    CAMP AS SAYLIYAH, Qatar - A U.S. general said Wednesday the discovery of 3,000 chemical suits in a hospital in central Iraq (news - web sites) that had been used as an Iraqi base raised concern that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime was prepared to use chemical weapons.
    "What we found at the hospital reinforces our concern," said Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks. "We are well-prepared to deal with the potential use of chemical weapons."


    In addition to the chemical suits, the Central Command reported earlier that Marines found and confiscated gas masks and nerve gas antidote injectors in the hospital near An Nasiriyah.

    Charlie ...

    If they won't adopt and feed a bird ..flip them one! BBQ some Gator and remember to flush WhenU..

    [This message was edited by EcomCity.com on March 26, 2003 at 09:47 AM.]

  9. #9
    ABW Ambassador iucpxleps's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    648
    Kathy Kelly, Voices in the Wilderness, March 26, 2003

    "At least 14 civilians were killed and 30 injured today after coalition air strikes hit a market in Baghdad, Iraqi officials said." - Independent (UK), 3/25/03

    Kathy Kelly is a peace activist who spent most of the 90s in and out of Iraq bearing witness to the effects of UN/U.S. sanctions on the people of Iraq. A small, fiery, yet extremely warm woman, Kelly has dedicated her entire being to helping people under siege. In 2000, she was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Today, she and other members of her group, Voices in the Wilderness, are in Baghdad continuing to witness and report on Iraqi's suffering:

    BAGHDAD, 3/25/03 -- I’m surrounded by some of the most kindly and gentle people in the world, coming from many walks of life. Members of our Iraq Peace Team have ‘checked in’ on most days of our five month stay here, some having been here for the full five months, and continually give expression to sentiments that are sacred in their affirmation of simplicity, sharing, and commitment to nonviolence. But in the last several days, feelings of intense anger surface. “I’m angry,” confided Sang Jin Han, of South Korea, a peace activist who has led South Korea’s campaign to ban land mines and who works closely with the Asian Peace Alliance. “I think this war will kill thousands of people.”


    Likewise, Zefira Hourfani, an Algerian woman, says she is very angry, so much so that she no longer considers herself a Canadian. “Now I am an Arab,” she says, “and I am angry at the western countries.” Lisa Ndjeru, a Rwandan woman, also a Canadian citizen, took particular umbrage over President Bush’s request that Americans help the U.S. troops by assisting them with home repair and child care. “What lunacy!” said Lisa. “Young Americans whose children need care and whose homes are falling apart should loan themselves to destroy homes and maim children in this country in order to finally get some help?”


    We try not to take our anger out on journalists who contact us. Neville Watson is normally gracious and entirely rational when he speaks to media. But he confessed that a few days ago, he “let him have it with both barrels” when an Australian “shock-jock” referred to civilian casualties as the expected collateral damage that comes with war. “How dare you refer to our friends as ‘collateral damage?” asked Neville. “And who is Mr. Bush kidding when he expects us to believe that the U.S. wants to secure Iraq’s oil fields for the benefit of Iraqi people?” Neville goes on to recite the sad and sordid history of economic siege and warfare that has cost the lives, already, of hundreds of thousands of children under age five.


    Yes, we are angry, very angry, and yet we feel deep responsibility to further the nonviolent antiwar efforts that burgeon in cities and towns throughout the world. We can direct our anger toward clear confrontation, controlling it so that we won’t explode in reactionary rage, but rather draw the sympathies of people toward the plight of innocent people here who never wanted to attack the U.S., who wonder, even as the bombs terrify them, why they can’t live as brothers and sisters with people in America.


    The Bush administration says the war has been successful because so far there have been only 500 casualties. From our March 24 2003 report on visits to the Yermouk and Al Kindy hospital trauma centers, where hundreds of wounded and maimed patients have been treated over the past five days, here are some of the success stories:


    Roesio Salem, age 10 is from Hai Risal. She went to the entrance of her home and told shouted to her father, “Bomb coming!” at which point she was hit on the first day of the attack. She is 10 years old and has sustained severe chest injuries. We simply couldn’t take our eyes off of her as she gently smiled at us from her hospital bed.


    Fatima 10 years old, from Radwaniya. She suffered multiple fractures when she and her family ran from their home, in an urban area, on Friday evening, March 21. A wall fell down and she suffered a fractured tibia. The family had no means of transport and had to wait until the next morning to get her to a hospital. Her father, Abu Mustafa, who works as a farm laborer, said, “We are like brothers and sisters to people in the United States. We don’t attack American people. Please give this message to American people. This is an invasion, it has nothing to do with democracy.”


    Ahmed Sabah, age 18, from the Al Zafrania district, was inside his home at 9:30 p.m. on Thursday, March 20. He suffered multiple wounds and a fractured arm and leg from shell injuries. They have used an external fixator to set his compound fractures.


    His father asked us to show people in all countries that love peace that his son is a victim and not a criminal.


    Hamed Kathem, age 20 sustained injury to his leg from shelling and arterial injury as well. He was in the courtyard of his home in El Biladiya on March 20. “We haven’t gone to the U.S. to hit them. They came here. Last night children were admitted to this hospital,” said Hamed. And then he simply asked, “Why?” “God save all the people,” said his father, quietly, “And God save all countries from this destruction.”


    Khadem Wadi, age 63, of Saddam City, was shopping for his family on March 23 at 5:00 p.m. when shrapnel punctured his intestine and wounded his leg. Two shells were removed from his abdomen.


    Hosam Khaf, a 13 year old boy from Baghdad Jeddidah, was injured on Friday, March 21st at 9:00 p.m. He sustained a shell injury to his abdomen and now has a colostomy bag. He is in great pain today. He lives in a multiple story building. As huge bombs exploded nearby, his family fled their flat. When he went into the street he was hit by shelling. His father, Abu Hosam, says that there are a military hospital and a military training facility 45 km away. “Most of the casualties are children, elderly people and civilians,” said Abu Hosam. What do they have to do with fighting and war?”


    We felt some relief in being able to tell patients and their families that people in countries around the world are turning out for massive demonstrations against the war.


    Each of these victims whose bedsides we visited today will lie still, hopefully recovering, with many hours to reflect on what has happened to them. Peace activists who continue to fill jails in the U.S. will likewise spend hours of confinement, pained by the cruel stupidity of warfare. Most of us are angry, very angry, - few of us can manage the genuine sweetness of little Ruba Salem whose gaze radiated easy affection in spite of her trauma,-- and yet I believe that we can channel our anger, our disappointment, our frustration and our rage into the kind of energy that will champion nonviolent resistance to the works of war, and an ever deepening desire for the works of mercy.

    ----
    Kathy Kelly is co-coordinator of Voices in the Wilderness and the Iraq Peace Team, a group of international peaceworkers remaining in Iraq through the war, in order to be a voice for the Iraqi people in the West. The Iraq Peace Team can be reached at info@vitw.org.


    -NO WAR-

  10. #10
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Was Kathy, who acts upon her strong beliefs in helping the oppressed in war zones, present in the late 90's when the Turks slaughtered 60,00 Kurds in southern Turkey using USA & Russian supplied arms. Seems like the Turks, begging to be part of NATO and the EU as a responsible world nation, cannot be trusted to not take donated Arms and use them to slaughter civilians because they didn't like their form of Islam.

    Her group should act as human shields along the border between Iraq and Turkey as the Turks have shown they target ALL Kurds in a move to exterminate them. The wimps in the UN sure turned a blind eye to that civilian slaughter and the Imlamic slap in the face over Cypress.

    Charlie ...

    If they won't adopt and feed a bird ..flip them one! BBQ some Gator and remember to flush WhenU..

  11. #11
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    360
    I have the worst of feelings that we haven't seen the bad part yet.

  12. #12
    ABW Ambassador iucpxleps's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    648
    MEMO
    3/25/03
    Gen. Tommy Franks
    U.S. Central Command, Qatar

    TO: Iraqi People
    RE: Playing by the Rules

    Here at CENTCOM we know this must be a difficult time for you. We feel your pain. We know tangling with our Black Hawks, Warthogs, and Tomahawks ain't no stroll in the park. That kind of firepower is mighty awesome, indeed. Gives me chills just thinking about it. But I'm not writing to go on and on about us. That's just rude. I actually wanted to take this opportunity to clear up some misunderstandings.

    Have you all forgot that you are being liberated? If you haven't, you sure are acting like you have - and it hurts, frankly. Especially, when you use words like "invading army" and "infidel white devils." We're working our butts off here to free your country from the yoke of a bad, bad man. Where is the love? If all goes as planned, and everything IS going EXACTLY AS PLANNED, you will soon be given an opportunity to share in the many splendid wonders of the American Way of Life (BTW, my wife is sending over her famous recipe for Peach Cobbler, you're all gonna just love it).

    You all ain't fighting fair. It is illegal and downright wrong for you to wear civies when you shoot at us. You all need to get some uniforms like a real Army. What's wrong with you people? Have you no respect for the profession?

    Starting today, the U.S. Government will be providing free, brand-new, hunting jackets to all Iraqi forces courtesy of our friends at LL Bean, outdoor outfitters of Maine since 1912. The jackets are comfortable, waterproof and will hold up for years, provided, of course, you don't end up on the receiving end of a Cruise missile (just kiddin'). Note: they are not bulletproof, as far as we know. They come in safety orange. We expect them to be worn at all times.

    We know it may seem like we're trying to kill you at times. But that's just the Texas way of saying, "Howdy, we're here to liberate you."

    I'm sure we are all going to be good friends once this whole mess is settled. Hell, our company cook is Vietnamese, and you don't see her bringing up My Lai everytime she flips my pancakes.

    If you're nice, I might even invite you over to my place for horseshoes.

    God Bless America, etc.
    Tommy "Ballpark" Franks


    -NO WAR-

  13. #13
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    iucpxleps straw man number 10. Add to that complete lack of understanding of the situation.

    When armed combatants remove their uniform to blend in with civilians, they are putting the civilians at risk. Which I guess is the fault of the allied forces?

    Chet

  14. #14
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    Jeez the only clearly marked targets are the volunteer "human shields" who wear t-shirts with bulleye targets front and back and carry a pocket GPS homing device. Meanwhile Linkshare has shipped Fedx overnight to Bagdad five cases of ankle biting gerbils and their old check cutting mailing system so Saddam can get out his payroll on time this month.

    Charlie ...

    If they won't adopt and feed a bird ..flip them one! BBQ some Gator and remember to flush WhenU..

  15. #15
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,118
    iucpxleps taking over where DreamMaster left off. Doesn't see nuthin wrong with the human shield strategy. Not to worry, nothing the US infantry can't handle.

    Let's see how you feel about the regime's next strategy.

  16. #16
    Domain Addict / Formerly known as elbowcreek Thomas A. Rice's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    5,468
    iucp....you must think an awful lot of yourself to try and speak for Tommy Franks.

    As for what amount of civilians would be an acceptable loss? Your asking the wrong people, don't you get it yet? You need to ask Saddam that question, as he is the one forcing this war on the world.

    He had 12 years to comply to the truce he signed, which would have been the responsible thing for the leader of a country to do. He refused, knowing full well that it meant some of his civilians - whom he is using as human shields, by the way - were going to get caught in a crossfire.

    Phrasing a question like that is just ignorant. It's like me asking you, "Answer yes or no, do you still beat your wife?" Either way you answer that question makes you look like you are a bad person, when in fact it's the question that is wrong.

    I suppose I could just have asked you the same question in reverse, "How many civilians can Saddam torture, rape and murder before you think it is okay to remove him from power. 1? 15? 1000? 1000000?"

    On the plus side, your question is immaterial now: Saddam is getting the *** kicking of a lifetime right now.

    Time Is A Parasite's Friend

  17. #17
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    15
    Well, I knew no-one would answer the question. And the reason is because if try to answer it you have to really think about the fact that innocent people are being killed. I don't think people who are pro-war have really looked at that.

    It is true also that that CNN etc are not willing to show it in real detail ... the war is like a video game when you watch it on tv. You don't often see the true horror, deaths ...

    "On the plus side, your question is immaterial now: Saddam is getting the *** kicking of a lifetime right now."
    - yes I think the chance of stopping war now is pretty low. The best outcome we can hope for is that the Iraqi forces surrender straight away. (Or another possible best option is the the US/UK withdraw right now, but that is not going to happen).

    However there is the possibility that the war could drag on for months with urban warfare in Bagdad. This would be a nightmare for Iraq, and the US. This is the only way that I could see the war stopping without a US victory ... but it would also be the worst option ... casulaties mounting, 20,000 US dead, 400,000 iraqis dead ... and Bush finally realises that the cure (Bush's invading army) is worse than the disease (Saddam). I hope this doesn't happen because it would be a nightmare scenario.

    Of course there are many other nightmare scenarios even if the US wins ... US takes control of Iraq, continuing attacks on US military control centers in Iraq, civil war breaks out with a few hundred thousand dead, Kurdish uprising, terrorist attack from Iran, US retaliates and war breaks out with Iran ... the list goes on. Lets just hope that none of them happen.

  18. #18
    Domain Addict / Formerly known as elbowcreek Thomas A. Rice's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    5,468
    And how come you never answered this question:

    "How many civilians can Saddam torture, rape and murder before you think it is okay to remove him from power. 1? 15? 1000? 1000000?"

    Time Is A Parasite's Friend

  19. #19
    Newbie
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    15
    My answer to that question is simple:

    I think Saddam should be removed from power right now ... but not by a means that kills many innocent iraqis in the mean time. In fact as we just saw on the news, a bomb fell on a civilian area and the people were chanting in hatred of the USA and in support of America. This is counter productive and strengthens Saddams rule.

    I would agree with an assasination of Saddam, but when you start talking about the means justifying the ends you are sliding down a slippery slope. I think your question is an important one to consider. If Saddam was right now gassing tens of thousands of people every day, then this would probably justify a war with civilian casualties. The point is that Bush didn't consider the question fully before he went to war ... he didn't consider how many civilians killed by his war vs how many civilians currently killed by Saddam. He also didn't consider fully the variety of options available other than all out war.

  20. #20
    ABW Ambassador qball0213's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    2,158
    The Iraqi's say we bombed a market, the army says Saddam did it. Ofcourse Saddam is going to say we do stuff to civilians, name one other military "leader" who would think it's okay and a good idea to dress up army men as civilians to attack the enemy. None, since it would cause more of his own innocent people harm. We care more about his people than he does.

  21. #21
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    690
    thefuture...

    You said:

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If Saddam was right now gassing tens of thousands of people every day, then this would probably justify a war with civilian casualties. The point is that Bush didn't consider the question fully before he went to war ... he didn't consider how many civilians killed by his war vs how many civilians currently killed by Saddam. He also didn't consider fully the variety of options available other than all out war.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    These types of statements are the ones that just make me crazy. Pure supposition. You have no earthly clue what President Bush considered or did not consider.

    Obstinatedon

    One of the most horrible features of war is that all war propaganda and anti-war propaganda; all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting; will not fight, could not fight, or - are simply too unpatriotic to fight. It is the same in all wars: the soldiers do the fighting, the journalists do the shouting, naysayers abound, and none of these true patriots or whiners ever gets near a front-line trench.

    A rewrite from Orwell

  22. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    103
    "If Saddam was right now gassing tens of thousands of people every day, then this would probably justify a war with civilian casualties. The point is that Bush didn't consider the question fully before he went to war ... he didn't consider how many civilians killed by his war vs how many civilians currently killed by Saddam. He also didn't consider fully the variety of options available other than all out war."


    So then maybe the UN should just set some rules for punishment equaling the crime:

    Crime: Punishment:

    (Per Day)
    &lt; 100 people gassed = Nasty Phone call.
    &lt; 1000 people gassed = Sanctions
    &lt; 10,000 gassed = Inspections
    More than 10,000 = War, regime change


    And in the lair of the evil dictator we hear, "Ok, boys, there's the gas chamber. And remember, pace yourselves, we don't want to cause a war."

    Then we could watch week after week as the inspectors report people being killed is still at under 10,000 per day as the "war-mongers" sulk away.

    (Damn - I swore I was only going to follow affiliate marketing threads.)

  23. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Either Or - Round 5
    By Rhea in forum Voting Booth
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 16th, 2005, 10:44 AM
  2. Either Or - Round 3
    By Rhea in forum Voting Booth
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: September 15th, 2005, 05:08 PM
  3. Either or - Round II
    By UncleScooter in forum Voting Booth
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: September 13th, 2005, 05:11 PM
  4. Round up.
    By joachim in forum Newbie Affiliate FAQs & Helpful Articles
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 20th, 2004, 07:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •