Game Forum / Role Playing Games / Final Fantasy / January 2006
30,000 Dead Iraqi Civilians
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Freedom Fries - 06 Jan 2006 01:52 GMT Where is the outrage? The redumblicans for months claimed that the 30,000 figure was false. After Bush acknowledged that at least 30,000 have died where is the outrage? Redumblicans claimed this number was just part of a liberal conspiracy. So is Bush part of the conspiracy?
Leahy seeks reckoning for dead civilians
By EVAN LEHMANN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has long avoided tracking civilian casualties in war -- or has it? A week after President Bush estimated that 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the war, the Senate is debating a defense policy bill carrying a provision that would require the Pentagon to brief Congress on the extent it records civilian deaths.
The provision, introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., asks whether "records of civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq are kept by United States Armed Forces."
It also asks if the records differentiate between fatalities and injuries, and whether any "compensation or assistance was provided to the victim or the victim's family."
The provision, as Leahy sees it, is the first step in establishing a permanent program in which the United States would compensate victims of an errant bomb, a stray bullet or a misguided missile.
"Much as you hate to admit, accidents happen in wars," Leahy told the Reformer in the Capitol Tuesday. "People are damaged by mistakes or they're near where an accident takes place. Bombs go off; they're hurt.
"We can do the humanitarian thing and help those people," he added.
The effort is not a new one to Leahy.
In 2003, Leahy adopted an effort on Capitol Hill to funnel $20 million into a Civilian Victims Assistance program. The program to date has expended $8 million on 622 projects in Iraq, like repairing homes destroyed inadvertently by U.S. forces, providing medical care and building schools.
The program was renamed this year after Marla Ruzicka -- the 28-year-old activist who caught Leahy's attention and spurred him to support the program. She died in Iraq when a nearby car exploded.
"There'd be a lot more done had she not been killed," Leahy said of humanitarian programs in Iraq.
But the Marla Ruzicka Iraqi War Victims Fund does not compensate victims or their families with cash. A different program -- the Commanders Emergency Response Program -- provides $2,500 to injured Iraqis or the families of civilians killed by American forces.
But the compensation is administered inconsistently by military commanders on the ground, and without the predictability offered by legislation, according to Tim Rieser, Leahy's senior foreign policy aide.
And though Leahy said his future legislation offering compensation would not dictate a monetary amount -- because, he said, the needs of victims and their families will vary depending on the incident and the country in which it occurred -- it seems that $2,500 is not enough.
"It is impossible to put a dollar value on a person's life," Rieser said. "No amount is enough. But a condolence payment is important because it acknowledges the loss."
The Senate is expected to vote on the defense policy bill this week. If it passes with the provision in tact, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld would have 90 days to submit a report to the committees on armed services and appropriations revealing the extent to which the Pentagon tracks casualties.
Rieser said it's possible the Pentagon requires troops to fill out incident reports when they kill or injure combatants. The records could illuminate civilian casualties as well, he said.
But it's unclear how willing the White House would be toward revealing civilian casualties over the long run -- a potentially potent argument for war critics.
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, fended off pointed questions from a reporter Tuesday who invoked Bush's estimate of 30,000 civilian casualties before asking, "I want to know why we're still there killing people, when we went in by mistake."
McClellan responded, "We are liberating people and freeing people to live in a democracy."
Leahy, a critic of the Iraq war, said the program could help change the way America is perceived by Iraqis and others around the world. He noted that Americans "opened our wallets and hearts" to foreign victims of earthquakes and the Asian tsunami a year ago.
"We are good people," Leahy said. "Let us help people who injured by the war -- innocent bystanders, innocent civilians' families -- let's try to help them."
http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~3174927,00.html
deemsbill@aol.com - 06 Jan 2006 03:50 GMT > Where is the outrage? The redumblicans for months claimed that the 30,000 > figure was false. After Bush acknowledged that at least 30,000 have died [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~3174927,00.html So, are there 30,000 dead or 30,000 casualties? The article needs to make up its mind. (Not that either would be anything to brag about)
Freedom Fries - 06 Jan 2006 05:37 GMT >> http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~3174927,00.html > > So, are there 30,000 dead or 30,000 casualties? The article needs to > make up its mind. (Not that either would be anything to brag about) 30,000 dead. The video of when he said this was at the Daily Show section at comedycentral.com the video was called First Responder it still may be there. His quote: "I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis"
http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051213/WIRE/212130318/11 17/news
deemsbill@aol.com - 06 Jan 2006 11:41 GMT > >> http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~3174927,00.html > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051213/WIRE/212130318/11 17/news My point is that was a very sloppy article. That gives any critics a valid argument.
Swillabrew - 06 Jan 2006 05:39 GMT >> Where is the outrage? The redumblicans for months claimed that the 30,000 >> figure was false. After Bush acknowledged that at least 30,000 have died [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > So, are there 30,000 dead or 30,000 casualties? The article needs to > make up its mind. (Not that either would be anything to brag about) Bush responded to a reporter's question asking him for an estimate of Iraqi civilians who have DIED due to the war.
It was later reported that he grabbed that number from the newspaper articles that Laura reads to him.
Go Blazers !
marika - 06 Jan 2006 18:30 GMT > Bush responded to a reporter's question asking him for an estimate of > Iraqi civilians who have DIED due to the war. > > It was later reported that he grabbed that number from the newspaper > articles that Laura reads to him. cool o joy o joy another robotic reply that shows that he wasn't really reading what his staff wrote
mk5000
"That you wanna hold me, But you know you're not that strong. I just can't do what I done before, I just can't beg you any more."--most likely 9you'll go your way and I'll go mine, dylan
Manco - 06 Jan 2006 08:25 GMT > So, are there 30,000 dead or 30,000 casualties? The article needs to > make up its mind. (Not that either would be anything to brag about) it sounds about right. I think the jihadist car-bombers/suicide bombers have killed 30,000 civilians since April 2003.
George Spelvin - 06 Jan 2006 14:26 GMT > > So, are there 30,000 dead or 30,000 casualties? The article needs to > > make up its mind. (Not that either would be anything to brag about) > > it sounds about right. I think the jihadist car-bombers/suicide bombers have > killed 30,000 civilians since April 2003. Amazing how callous some people can be towards innocent Iraqis killed by Americans, but absolutely outraged when innocent Americans are killed. On 9/11 3,000 innocent people were killed in the U.S. That was a horrible human tragedy. Since then, the United States has been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people. This has been a monumental human tragedy. Where is your outrage?
I'll bet you are just another chicken-hawk, Bush apologist.
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr12.php "A Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 2003-2005" is the first detailed account of all non-combatants reported killed or wounded during the first two years of the continuing conflict. The report, published by Iraq Body Count in association with Oxford Research Group, is based on comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 media reports published between March 2003 and March 2005.
Findings include: Who was killed? 24,865 civilians were reported killed in the first two years. Women and children accounted for almost 20% of all civilian deaths. Baghdad alone recorded almost half of all deaths. When did they die? 30% of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion phase before 1 May 2003. Post-invasion, the number of civilians killed was almost twice as high in year two (11,351) as in year one (6,215). Who did the killing? US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims. Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims. Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths. Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period. What was the most lethal weaponry? Over half (53%) of all civilian deaths involved explosive devices. Air strikes caused most (64%) of the explosives deaths. Children were disproportionately affected by all explosive devices but most severely by air strikes and unexploded ordnance (including cluster bomblets). How many were injured? At least 42,500 civilians were reported wounded. The invasion phase caused 41% of all reported injuries. Explosive weaponry caused a higher ratio of injuries to deaths than small arms. The highest wounded-to-death ratio incidents occurred during the invasion phase. Who provided the information? Mortuary officials and medics were the most frequently cited witnesses.
Three press agencies provided over one third of the reports used. Iraqi journalists are increasingly central to the reporting work.
Justin Pate - 06 Jan 2006 14:33 GMT > Amazing how callous some people can be towards innocent Iraqis killed > by Americans, but absolutely outraged when innocent Americans are > killed. You think the Muslims care if Americans are killed? They only get mad at suicide bombers when Muslims are killed.
We only get mad when Americans are killed.
Try to pay attention.
Mike Espinoza - 06 Jan 2006 15:59 GMT > > Amazing how callous some people can be towards innocent Iraqis killed > > by Americans, but absolutely outraged when innocent Americans are > > killed. > > You think the Muslims care if Americans are killed? They only get mad > at suicide bombers when Muslims are killed. Are you saying that the innocent Iraqis that we are trying to bring freedom to, as opposed to the ones that want us dead, don't care if Americans are killed? Wouldn't that make them ungrateful?
> We only get mad when Americans are killed. Yeah, but we get madder when American civilians are killed (i.e. Katrina victims, West Virginian miners) than when American soldiers are killed. I guess we figure that the soldiers knew what they were getting into. -- Mike E.
Justin Pate - 06 Jan 2006 16:20 GMT > > > Amazing how callous some people can be towards innocent Iraqis killed > > > by Americans, but absolutely outraged when innocent Americans are [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > freedom to, as opposed to the ones that want us dead, don't care if > Americans are killed? Wouldn't that make them ungrateful? It's not just Iraq; the bombings in Jordan ticked off Jordanians. You could hear many of them say "If it's Westerners that's one thing, but against Muslims....."
> > We only get mad when Americans are killed. > > Yeah, but we get madder when American civilians are killed (i.e. > Katrina victims, West Virginian miners) than when American soldiers are > killed. I guess we figure that the soldiers knew what they were > getting into. I guess so.
SNORKY - 07 Jan 2006 16:24 GMT >It's not just Iraq; the bombings in Jordan ticked off Jordanians. You >could hear many of them say "If it's Westerners that's one thing, but >against Muslims....." The Islamofacists have made a serious strategic blunder by attacking Muslims. Because (partially) of this they have lost Iraq, and it might just change world Muslim opinion against them.
Even the other day, they were still at it killing over 100 Iraqi civilians. If only they had concentrated their efforts on the US troops instead, they would have faired much better due to the liberal traitors on our own soil (so-called "citizens").
George Spelvin - 07 Jan 2006 14:42 GMT > > Amazing how callous some people can be towards innocent Iraqis killed > > by Americans, but absolutely outraged when innocent Americans are > > killed. > > You think the Muslims care if Americans are killed? I think Muslim Americans certainly care.
> They only get mad at suicide bombers when Muslims are killed. > > We only get mad when Americans are killed. > > Try to pay attention. Start paying attention to the difference between nationality and religion.
SNORKY - 07 Jan 2006 16:25 GMT >> > Amazing how callous some people can be towards innocent Iraqis killed >> > by Americans, but absolutely outraged when innocent Americans are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >I think Muslim Americans certainly care. I still think those Muslims in NY state who turned in that cell are heroes.
Noodles Jefferson - 06 Jan 2006 11:37 GMT > Where is the outrage? The redumblicans for months claimed that the 30,000 > figure was false. After Bush acknowledged that at least 30,000 have died [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~3174927,00.html Only 30,000? Bullshit.
 Signature Noodles Jefferson mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30 sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM
NP: "We Die Young" -- Alice In Chains
"Our earth is degenerate in these latter days, bribery and corruption are common, children no longer obey their parents and the end of the world is evidently approaching." --Assyrian clay tablet 2800 B.C.
Justin Pate - 06 Jan 2006 14:31 GMT > Where is the outrage? The redumblicans for months claimed that the 30,000 > figure was false. After Bush acknowledged that at least 30,000 have died > where is the outrage? They're Iraqis, not Americans.
George Spelvin - 07 Jan 2006 14:46 GMT "They're Iraqis, not Americans."
They're "liberated" Iraqis. Remember how they are better off now than before the war? Well, except for the dead ones. And the close friends and family members of the dead ones. And the ones who were severely injured. The three or four other Iraqis are way better off than they were before. Chalabi is way better off than he was before.
SNORKY - 07 Jan 2006 16:30 GMT >"They're Iraqis, not Americans." > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >injured. The three or four other Iraqis are way better off than they >were before. Chalabi is way better off than he was before. How about the ones who were dead ones or serverely injured ones before we arrived? Are the hundreds of thousands in mass graves better off we are now there?
Just a friendly thought. You f.cking moron.
George Spelvin - 08 Jan 2006 14:30 GMT > >"They're Iraqis, not Americans." > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > we arrived? Are the hundreds of thousands in mass graves better off > we are now there? Dead people are already dead. Their status hasn't changed. The people who were alive before the invasion are the ones I'm concerned about.
How can one possibly claim to be a liberating force when that force is responsible for so much suffering and death? Over 30,000 human beings! What makes the plight of those people any better now than before?
> Just a friendly thought. You f.cking moron. What a salient debater you are.
SNORKY - 10 Jan 2006 02:17 GMT >> >"They're Iraqis, not Americans." >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >responsible for so much suffering and death? Over 30,000 human beings! > What makes the plight of those people any better now than before? Most of those 30k were killed by the insurgents by design. Why did you not mention this?
>> Just a friendly thought. You f.cking moron. > >What a salient debater you are. George Spelvin - 10 Jan 2006 13:35 GMT > >> >"They're Iraqis, not Americans." > >> > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Most of those 30k were killed by the insurgents by design. Why did > you not mention this? Because I was responding to Manco's ridiculous remark: "it sounds about right. I think the jihadist car-bombers/suicide bombers have killed 30,000 civilians since April 2003."
His suggestion was that American and other coalition forces hadn't killed any civilians.
We know that at least 7,299 civilians were killed by American and coalition forces during "major combat operations." http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/#
That is over twice the number of people killed on 9/11.
Since then, many other civilians have been killed by Americans and other coalition forces.
Insurgents/terrorists/resistance fighters have killed thousands of people. They have also done so as a DIRECT result of the invasion and occupation.
We also know that some 42,500 Iraqi civilians have been injured.
There have also been over 2,200 American soldiers killed and hundreds of other coalition soldiers.
Are you going to buy property there? Vacation any time soon? I hear it's quite the democracy where progress is always being made.
trijcomm - 10 Jan 2006 17:17 GMT >I hear it's quite the democracy where progress is always >being made.
In the era of "one-minute eggs are too slow," the above statement doesn't surprise me in the least.
Edward M. Kennedy - 10 Jan 2006 17:29 GMT > >I hear > it's quite the democracy where progress is always >being made. > > In the era of "one-minute eggs are too slow," the above statement > doesn't surprise me in the least. In the sixties it was, "Keep it boiling for a decade."
--Tedward
Dewey - 10 Jan 2006 16:23 GMT >>> >"They're Iraqis, not Americans." >>> > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Most of those 30k were killed by the insurgents by design. Would that be intelligent design?
George Spelvin - 08 Jan 2006 14:41 GMT > >"They're Iraqis, not Americans." > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > we arrived? Are the hundreds of thousands in mass graves better off > we are now there? The status of the dead people didn't change after we "arrived." The bodies in the mass graves remain unchanged.
However, there are some 30,000 new dead bodies. I'm not sure if those corpses are better off than the corpses already there. I'm sure the Pentagon has the definitive answer.
It is difficult for many to understand how killing 30,000 innocent human beings (ten times the number of people who died on 9/11) makes a population better off.
> Just a friendly thought. You f.cking moron. What a salient debater you are.
George Spelvin - 08 Jan 2006 17:12 GMT The ones already dead are still dead. The status of those in mass graves hasn't changed.
However, the status of well over 30,000 innocent people did change. Their "lives" are much worse off now because they were killed.
> You f.cking moron. You are such a salient debater. You are perhaps the all-time greatest usenet insulter. I've never seen anything quite so hard-hitting and witty. Hope you're proud. I'm sure everyone is extremely impressed.
KRJ - 07 Jan 2006 16:04 GMT Are you upset that more aren't dead? I'm confused. You cheer the people killing Iraqi Civilians. You cheer the regime that killed hundreds of thousands. And you boo the people trying to stop the killing. At the same time you apparently are upset by the number of dead. Either you're terrible confused, stupid or just trolling.
> Where is the outrage? The redumblicans for months claimed that the 30,000 > figure was false. After Bush acknowledged that at least 30,000 have died [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~3174927,00.html George Spelvin - 08 Jan 2006 14:35 GMT I can't speak for Freedom Fries, but try to be more honest in your points. You know he is neither cherring the killing of civilians nor the prior regime. The point is that the United States' actions have directly resulted in the deaths of at least 30,000 innocent people. That should be a cause of concern. So why don't we question the official bullshit about how "we" have made their lives so much better when "we" have killed ten times the number of people who died on 9/11?
"And you boo the people trying to stop that killing."
Do you understand that those 30,000 are people killed by American and other forces during the invasion and occupation? Only a portion are those attacked by terrorist resistance fighters.
dam - 10 Jan 2006 14:04 GMT > Do you understand that those 30,000 are people killed by American and > other forces during the invasion and occupation?
>From your own cite: "US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims". Do you understand math? Or do you intentionlly misrepresent the facts?
dam
George Spelvin - 11 Jan 2006 14:28 GMT > > Do you understand that those 30,000 are people killed by American and > > other forces during the invasion and occupation? > > >From your own cite: "US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims". > > Do you understand math? Or do you intentionlly misrepresent the facts? That is an estimate (from one source) of direct killings. The other deaths are indirectly attributed (the "insurgency" is a direct result of the invasion and occupation). Furthermore, there are other sources with even higher numbers.
Dewey - 11 Jan 2006 16:05 GMT >> > Do you understand that those 30,000 are people killed by American and >> > other forces during the invasion and occupation? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of the invasion and occupation). Furthermore, there are other sources > with even higher numbers. Yes but it give aid and comfort to the enemy if you so much as refer to those higher numbers. Our president says so.
Lord Gow, Happy Go Fun Battling Warrior of Lesnarism! - 11 Jan 2006 16:49 GMT >>> > Do you understand that those 30,000 are people killed by American and >>> > other forces during the invasion and occupation? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yes but it give aid and comfort to the enemy if you so much as refer to > those higher numbers. Our president says so. And all these numbers pale in comparison to the Iraqi people killed by Saddam. Historical facts say so.
LG (spinning his wheels in a liberal mudhole)
 Signature "The United States is like a giant boiler. When the fire is finally lighted under it, there is no limit to the power it can generate." - Winston Churchill
Dewey - 11 Jan 2006 16:54 GMT >>>> > Do you understand that those 30,000 are people killed by American >>>> > and other forces during the invasion and occupation? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > And all these numbers pale in comparison to the Iraqi people killed by > Saddam. Historical facts say so. I see. Is this to be the yardstick? Have you any idea how many people have been slaughtered in the DRC? Darfur? Why aren't you advocating spending trillions of tax-payer dollars and wasting thousands of American lives to liberate these people?
Here's a hint: rebels in DRC slaughtered 10 times more people in the last 5 years alone than Saddam did in his 35 year reign.
Lord Gow, Happy Go Fun Battling Warrior of Lesnarism! - 11 Jan 2006 17:11 GMT >>>>> > Do you understand that those 30,000 are people killed by American >>>>> > and other forces during the invasion and occupation? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> And all these numbers pale in comparison to the Iraqi people killed by >> Saddam. Historical facts say so. Oooooh, five whole minutes. Obsessive little liberal, aren't we?
> I see. Is this to be the yardstick? Have you any idea how many people > have > been slaughtered in the DRC? Darfur? Why aren't you advocating spending > trillions of tax-payer dollars and wasting thousands of American lives to > liberate these people? All in good time, dear boy. We had to start somewhere. Besides, when we do you idiots will only sit around and bitch about it anyway.
> Here's a hint: rebels in DRC slaughtered 10 times more people in the last > 5 > years alone than Saddam did in his 35 year reign. Of course they did. Praise be Saddam and his humanitarian ways.
LG
 Signature "The United States is like a giant boiler. When the fire is finally lighted under it, there is no limit to the power it can generate." - Winston Churchill
Dewey - 11 Jan 2006 17:28 GMT >>>>>> > Do you understand that those 30,000 are people killed by >>>>>> > American and other forces during the invasion and occupation? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Oooooh, five whole minutes. Obsessive little liberal, aren't we? This is a laugh riot coming from someone who waited all of 7 minutes. How typically hypocritical. No doubt the rest of your response is little more than a litany of hypocritical excuses when in fact the real answer is so simple: oil. Who has it? Who doesn't?
>> I see. Is this to be the yardstick? Have you any idea how many >> people have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > All in good time, dear boy. Typical condescension. When you have nothing to say, act like you are an authority. I guarantee you that the US will NEVER take any military action in DRC or Darfur. Why? Oil.
> We had to start somewhere. Besides, when Right. So we starting in Iraq, where Saddam was, in the words of Condi Rice, already contained? That makes ever so much sense.
> we do you idiots will only sit around and bitch about it anyway. Gee. Who were the idiots sitting around and bitching when we joined NATO forces to liberate Kosovo?
>> Here's a hint: rebels in DRC slaughtered 10 times more people in the >> last 5 >> years alone than Saddam did in his 35 year reign. > > Of course they did. Praise be Saddam and his humanitarian ways. Strawman. You have pretty much hit all the high points of a lying hypocrite: bash someone for the exact same thing you did (here it is the quick reply); act like you are ever so much more mature (but don't forget to call people names like the infant you really are) and reply with strawmen. Excellent job. Then again, this is probably all Fox News and Rush Limabugh have coached you for.
George Spelvin - 12 Jan 2006 14:06 GMT "And all these numbers pale in comparison to the Iraqi people killed by
Saddam. Historical facts say so."
So that makes everything okay? Since "we" have killed fewer Iraqis than Saddam, then it is all justified? Then we should just kill a few more--just keep it under the number Saddam killed so we don't look bad.
George Spelvin - 12 Jan 2006 14:04 GMT > >> > Do you understand that those 30,000 are people killed by American and > >> > other forces during the invasion and occupation? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yes but it give aid and comfort to the enemy if you so much as refer to > those higher numbers. Our president says so. He must be right since he is the one who created the enemy there.
Tom Enright - 12 Jan 2006 14:31 GMT > > That is an estimate (from one source) of direct killings. The other > > deaths are indirectly attributed (the "insurgency" is a direct result > > of the invasion and occupation). Furthermore, there are other sources > > with even higher numbers.
> Yes but it give aid and comfort to the enemy if you so much as refer to > those higher numbers. Our president says so. When did he say that?
-Tom Enright
|
|
|