Survey: 25,000 civilians killed in Iraq war

[Secret Squirrel]

U.S.-led forces, insurgents and criminal gangs have killed nearly 25,000 civilians, police and army recruits since the war began in March 2003, according to a survey by Iraq Body Count, a U.S.-British non-government group.

Nearly half the deaths occurred in Baghdad, where a fifth of Iraq's 25 million people live, according to media reports that Iraq Body Count has surveyed.

The second-highest death toll was in the former insurgent stronghold of Falluja, where one in every 137 of the town's population has died violently.

Of the total, nearly 37 percent were killed by U.S.-led forces, according to the group.

The group said the information "provides a unique insight into the human consequences of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq".

"Leaders who commit troops to wars of intervention have diminishingly few excuses for failing to seriously weigh the human costs," it said in a 28-page dossier.

The numbers include civilians, army and police recruits, and serving police. They do not include serving Iraqi military or combatant deaths, for which there are "no reliable accounts ... either official or unofficial".

The group took its data, including figures showing that more than 42,000 civilians wounded in the same two years, from an analysis of more than 10,000 press and media reports published since the war began.

The death toll almost mirrors a U.N.-funded survey conducted last year, which found some 24,000 conflict-related deaths since the U.S.-led invasion.

Another survey, published in Britain's Lancet medical journal last October, found nearly 100,000 war-related deaths in the 18 months after the invasion. These findings were contested by U.S. and British officials.

Since the media in Iraq is forced to focus on Baghdad for security reasons, it is likely Iraq Body Count's death toll throughout the country is an under-estimate.

The survey found that almost a third of civilian deaths occurred during the invasion itself, from March 20 to May 1, 2003, when U.S.-led forces carried out their "shock and awe" bombing campaign on Baghdad.

In the first year after the invasion, around 6,000 civilians were killed, a number that nearly doubled in the second year, indicating a general increase in violence. The group said deaths caused by insurgents and criminals had risen steadily.

U.S.-led forces were found to be chiefly responsible for deaths, and criminals a close second at 36 percent, while insurgents accounted for a surprisingly small 9.5 percent.

That would not appear to tally with the situation on the ground, where insurgent violence is rife. It may reflect media sourcing, since it is often not clear who carried out a specific attack. According to Iraq Body Count, "unknown agents" were responsible for 11 percent of deaths.

The survey would also appear not to capture the full extent of the devastation caused by insurgent car bombings. Over the past 18 months, hundreds of suicide car bombs have exploded around the country -- at least 40 this month alone.

Those attacks have killed an estimated 1,500 Iraqi civilians since the end of April -- a period not covered in the survey.

link (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/iraq.bodycount.reut/index.html)

[Aerosoul]

Survey? What did they do, survey the dead people?

No one knows how many have died. IMO.

[Thor]

Yeah, no one knows for sure how many civilians that died during WWII. Still people make surveys and estimates numbers.

[Freibier]

That's a damn shame :|

[Pille1234]

The really sickening thing is how those victims are abused for political purposes. Most people here and in the West in general never lost a thought about them when Saddam was in power. The Iraqis died due to Saddam or due to UN embargos and noone cared. First when George W Bush had to realise that WMD was not good enough and came up with that liberation crap all the noise traders in the press discovered their compassion and the war supporters discovered that beeing an occupier and carring the burden of soldiers coming home in boxes feels much better when feeling pity for the Iraqis: We are the good guys, we make the world a better place, while forgetting that we are 20 years late in Iraq, while a real genocide goes on completely unnoticed in Darfur. On the other hand, when Iraqis die through western forces than all they say is well, that's war and **** happens or sorry, that was collateral damage or DPGLAW asking why Fallujah hasn't been leveled yet...
Then there are the Antiwar guys, who only then detect their compassion when the victims were killed by US forces. They are only waiting for their chance to proof the pure maliciousness of the imperialist yankees and try to show the ruthlessness of Americans to make the oil flow.

/End of Rant.

[Avary]

What about the lancet study that said it was one hundred thousand deaths? IBC didn't get the memo or what?

[usa320]

BS...

[WarriorMonk]

The really sickening thing is how those victims are abused for political purposes. Most people here and in the West in general never lost a thought about them when Saddam was in power. The Iraqis died due to Saddam or due to UN embargos and noone cared. First when George W Bush had to realise that WMD was not good enough and came up with that liberation crap all the noise traders in the press discovered their compassion and the war supporters discovered that beeing an occupier and carring the burden of soldiers coming home in boxes feels much better when feeling pity for the Iraqis: We are the good guys, we make the world a better place, while forgetting that we are 20 years late in Iraq, while a real genocide goes on completely unnoticed in Darfur. On the other hand, when Iraqis die through western forces than all they say is well, that's war and **** happens or sorry, that was collateral damage or DPGLAW asking why Fallujah hasn't been leveled yet...
Then there are the Antiwar guys, who only then detect their compassion when the victims were killed by US forces. They are only waiting for their chance to proof the pure maliciousness of the imperialist yankees and try to show the ruthlessness of Americans to make the oil flow.

/End of Rant.

Wait, so US forces INTENTIONALLY kill civilians to you now?

I'm sorry, but I don't think "the lame collateral damage excuse" is a lame excuse at all. I guess you can try dropping 1000 pound bombs accurately if you wanna try. :|

[Redux]

we dont know the number, therefore we should not care how many actually died

[Weasel]

Collateral damage. It´s all for the freedom.

:roll:

[Oddbod]

How many Iraqis died each year under Husseins regime?

I remember film of "opponents" of his regime being tied together & blown up with a hand grenade, the gassing of civilians & the mass murder of the marsh Arabs amongst many other atrocities.

[Oddbod]

A quick Google produces this:

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

[nognig]

according to a survey by Iraq Body Count



Hmm... based on the name of this organization, it wouldn't have any reason to inflate the numbers would it?

NN

[Secret Squirrel]

A quick Google produces this:

http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis.

Would that be after the failed uprising after GW1?


Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran.

Did Iran kill those civilians or exactly how did they die?


Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

So then we can place the blood of Iraqi civilian deaths on the hands of Bush? ;)






according to a survey by Iraq Body Count



Hmm... based on the name of this organization, it wouldn't have any reason to inflate the numbers would it?

NN

Umm gee could it be because their organization is attempting to keep tract of civilian deaths in Iraq? Or do you just want your tinfoil hat back? ;)

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Yes, one can hardly expect accurate reporting from "Iraqi Body Count" can one? Would you lefties trust "America Rules Joo 1110101 One teh Delta!"?


U.S.-led forces were found to be chiefly responsible for deaths, and criminals a close second at 36 percent, while insurgents accounted for a surprisingly small 9.5 percent.

That would not appear to tally with the situation on the ground, where insurgent violence is rife. It may reflect media sourcing, since it is often not clear who carried out a specific attack. According to Iraq Body Count, "unknown agents" were responsible for 11 percent of deaths.

Even the CNN's wild spin on the obviously flawed data is interesting. Rather than putting a positive light on it, they go to great extents to point out that the US is responsible for the majority of the deaths. But is it true? No, not even by their own numbers.

US= 37%
"criminals"=36% (do criminals=terrorists who they won't call terrorists?)
insurgents=9.5%
"unknown agents"=11%

do the math
US= 37%
Iraqi's, Foreign fighters=56.5%

Yet the story doesn't report "Most Iraqi civilian deaths at the hands of other Iraqis!" - no it's all about the evil US coalition.

This report is a non-report. It's even worse than that ridiculous UN report that got information by walking from door to door asking about people hurt or killed (i.e. not from official hospital record). "Was anybody here killed?" "No sir, but my cousins' friend's uncle's girlfriend's family was totally wiped out, all 7 of them." "Ok, 7 dead here, thanks"

At least they pointed out the glaringly obvious:

The survey would also appear not to capture the full extent of the devastation caused by insurgent car bombings. Over the past 18 months, hundreds of suicide car bombs have exploded around the country -- at least 40 this month alone.

Why do some media outlets even bother?

[usa320]

U.S.-led forces were found to be chiefly responsible for deaths

Bull****ing**** they were.

US soldiers kill maybe 1 civilian a week by accident if even. Insurgents are blowing up 60 people a day...


just for that bull**** ill never watch CNN again.

[Mailman]

Geez, so what is it...100,000 or 25000 deaths caused by the allies?

Mailman

[oldsoak]

At this point in time, we're guesstimating. We thought that we'd killed tens of thousands of Iraqis in GW1 - only to find later that casualties were a lot lower - which is great, as killing Iraqis wasnt/isnt the reason we're there. People are getting displaced, running away to some place safer or quieter or suchlike. We'll only know for sure when its all quiet and then we'll have difficulty. How do you know someone is dead if records are sketchy ? How do you know he/she was killed by the co-alition or insurgents or criminal homicide or even accidentally shot at a wedding celebration ? You need stability to ensure that facts can be verified and cross referenced. Until we have that, we cant say X thousand or Y thousand.

[Olybrius]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41319000/gif/_41319877_civilian_victims4_pie203.gifhttp://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41319000/gif/_41319923_civilian_deaths3_pie203.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4692589.stm

[Kilgor]

Oh wait, I thought the lefties were saying that 100k was gospel when it came to casualities. Now its 25k ?

Im confused !

[Argyll]

U.S.-led forces were found to be chiefly responsible for deaths

Bull****ing**** they were.

US soldiers kill maybe 1 civilian a week by accident if even. Insurgents are blowing up 60 people a day...


just for that bull**** ill never watch CNN again.


Actually they kill about 5-10 a day give or take,and that's mostly in Baghdad alone,just through accidents...........hate to burst your bubble but not every guy killed by the US/Coalition is a bad guy either

[ibstolidude]

....hate to burst your bubble but not every guy killed by the US/Coalition is a bad guy either
Sure they are - that is how you know they are bad - if they weren't, they wouldn't have been killed. Duh! (actual explaination used once - as surprising as this may be to some - it wasn't made by a US military person)

[He219]

I listened to their rationalization in determining these figures on the radio today.
If two casualty counts reported by major news networks corroberated, then this was the figure they used ....


Regardless, RIP to civilian casualties both during the invasion and those countless by the hands of the terrorist insurgency.
:(

[Belrick]

*Yawn*
Remember its a justifiable war. Sure the US cant take esponsibility for there death... even though they would be alive today if GWB hadnt of lied.

Hell they would be alive today if Iraq had of had WMD, no wonder Iran is pushing for nukes. A govt prime responsibility is to the welfare of its citizens.

[mr.chips]

BS...

[Ballistic]

*Yawn*
Remember its a justifiable war. Sure the US cant take esponsibility for there death... even though they would be alive today if GWB hadnt of lied.

Hell they would be alive today if Iraq had of had WMD, no wonder Iran is pushing for nukes. A govt prime responsibility is to the welfare of its citizens.

rofl

[Zarathustra]

Weird.

[abncougar]

statistics show that of the people who contract eating as a habit, very few survive.

[Holycrusader]

U.S.-led forces were found to be chiefly responsible for deaths

Bull****ing**** they were.

US soldiers kill maybe 1 civilian a week by accident if even. Insurgents are blowing up 60 people a day...


just for that bull**** ill never watch CNN again.


Actually they kill about 5-10 a day give or take,and that's mostly in Baghdad alone,just through accidents...........hate to burst your bubble but not every guy killed by the US/Coalition is a bad guy either

Voice of reason once again

Thank you woot woot woot

[seva108]

Argyll, US forces do not kill 5-10 civilians per day in Baghdad, just through accidents. That is complete crap.

Civilians are killed, no doubt, but don't tell me 300 per month are killed by US in Baghdad. You've lost perspective if you believe that.

[caridon]

What about the lancet study that said it was one hundred thousand deaths? IBC didn't get the memo or what?

apples and oranges. This study only counted direct deths as in "he was shot"
the lancet study also counted indirect deaths as he died because there was no medicine because of the fighting or he died because of bad water.

thats why the lancet study has such a high uncertanty number because it is very hard to acurately determine if a death would have occured if there hadent been a war.

/C

[Aerosoul]

U.S.-led forces were found to be chiefly responsible for deaths

Bull****ing**** they were.

US soldiers kill maybe 1 civilian a week by accident if even. Insurgents are blowing up 60 people a day...


just for that bull**** ill never watch CNN again.

You know this from your deployment in Iraq? Come on man, you, me, every other civvie, and probbaly the military too have no ****ing idea.

[Argyll]

Argyll, US forces do not kill 5-10 civilians per day in Baghdad, just through accidents. That is complete crap.

Civilians are killed, no doubt, but don't tell me 300 per month are killed by US in Baghdad. You've lost perspective if you believe that.

Between 5-10 civilians a day get shot at through jumpy gunners on HUMVESS's,belonging to the US Military and US Contractors,children get knocked down daily............many are NEVER reported through the chain.....it's not losing perspective at all,it's based on incident reports that you are probably not privy to.....why can't people face up to the truth that hurts sometimes?

Every day in Iraq civilians are being engaged at roadblocks,some with fatalities at the scenes,some die later,just because it's not making National Media outlets doesn't mean it's not happening!!

2-3 civilians probably die from crossfires too......time to wake up to the reality of the war for some of you.

[Mailman]

Just as every person killed isnt a bad guy Argylle...every person that is killed also isnt killed by the US military in Baghdad.

One would think that a lot more people are being killed by the terrorists than by the US military in that city.

Mailman

[Prometheus]

Let's do a little calculation, under the assumption that 25,000 civilian casualties are the correct number and that 37% of them are killed by US Forces (a realistic estimation IMHO).

37% of 25,000 = 9250

Occupation of Iraq started in March 2003, now it's end of July 2005, that’s a period of 2 years 4 month (2 1/3 years)

9250 divided by 2 1/3 = 3964 Iraqi civilians killed by US forces a year

3964 divided by 365 days = 10.86 Iraqi civilians killed by US forces a day

Freed Iraqis? Not really...

[oldsoak]

Welcome to war. Like it or not, people are killed by accident, not good and not deliberate on the part of the coalition.
Before we cast stones, lets remember that Europe shares one thing in common with the US - self righteousness.

[Argyll]

Just as every person killed isnt a bad guy Argylle...every person that is killed also isnt killed by the US military in Baghdad.

One would think that a lot more people are being killed by the terrorists than by the US military in that city.

Mailman

Nobodys disputing that more Iraqi's are killed by Terrorists and Insurgent activity than at the hands of the US Military,but the Military are killing,a point some here cannot seem to comprehend!

[BMF_EOD]

MilitaryPhotos.net = Political Blog

[Argyll]

looks that way BMF doesn't it?

[Clarsachier]

Just as every person killed isnt a bad guy Argylle...every person that is killed also isnt killed by the US military in Baghdad.

One would think that a lot more people are being killed by the terrorists than by the US military in that city.

Mailman

Nobodys disputing that more Iraqi's are killed by Terrorists and Insurgent activity than at the hands of the US Military,but the Military are killing,a point some here cannot seem to comprehend!

Maybe not here, :roll: but anyone here with common sense is well aware what will happen when teenage Americans are locked and loaded and 'surrounded.'

[seva108]

Saddam is estimated to have killed at least 200,000 of his own people purely for personal, political, or sadistic reasons since coming to power in 1979. Thats's 8333 per year for 24 years.

That's not counting the dead from Saddam's various wars, which bring the figure in the million range. Of course, this counts soldiers, so it's not the best comparison. This brings the figure to a staggering average of 41,666 per year.

Source: NY Times, referenced here
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html

Reasonable estimates for civilian casualties from the American invasion range from 5,000 to 10,000 over the course of 2 years.

Source http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html

That's 2500 to 5000 per year. Prometheus came up with 3984, far less than under Saddam.


We've got to remember that while terrible, not only is the death rate better than under Saddam, but it is temporary. Iraq WILL be a democracy, it WILL be peaceful, and Iraq WILL be a model for others in the area to strive for. Every wacko in the middle east knows this, so they are doing their utmost through committing and supporting indiscriminate killing to derail the process.

[caridon]

We've got to remember that while terrible, not only is the death rate better than under Saddam, but it is temporary. Iraq WILL be a democracy, it WILL be peaceful, and Iraq WILL be a model for others in the area to strive for. Every wacko in the middle east knows this, so they are doing their utmost through committing and supporting indiscriminate killing to derail the process.

I like your optimism but unless you have a very good crystal ball (or are counting a 500+ year spann for your prediction) how can you know ?

One possible result is a lebanon 2.0 where the US withdraws for political reasons and the country sinks into a 3+ sided civil war.

/C

[Secret Squirrel]

Reasonable estimates for civilian casualties from the American invasion range from 5,000 to 10,000 over the course of 2 years.

Source http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html



You do realize that used an article from May, 2003? The 5,000 to 10,000 number mentioned only takes into account the 6 weeks (or so) for the invasion (ie. from boots on the ground until Bush said that "major combat operations are over". ;)

[seva108]

One possible result is a lebanon 2.0 where the US withdraws for political reasons and the country sinks into a 3+ sided civil war.



You're absolutely right, of course. That's why it's imperitive that the coalition stays determined and doesn't listen to the whining from the sidelines.




You do realize that used an article from May, 2003? The 5,000 to 10,000 number mentioned only takes into account the 6 weeks (or so) for the invasion (ie. from boots on the ground until Bush said that "major combat operations are over".



Yeah -- the rate has stayed the same, as referenced by the article this thread is about. Prometheous calculated 3964 killed by coalition per year from the numbers referenced in the article.

[He219]

Saddam is estimated to have killed at least 200,000 of his own people purely for personal, political, or sadistic reasons since coming to power in 1979. Thats's 8333 per year for 24 years.
Interesting how some use any opportunity to pass their personal judgement upon the US.

"We must always fear the wicked. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear the most, and that is the indifference of good men"

[Mailman]

Just as every person killed isnt a bad guy Argylle...every person that is killed also isnt killed by the US military in Baghdad.

One would think that a lot more people are being killed by the terrorists than by the US military in that city.

Mailman

Nobodys disputing that more Iraqi's are killed by Terrorists and Insurgent activity than at the hands of the US Military,but the Military are killing,a point some here cannot seem to comprehend!

I think the point that people cant comprehend, geez, is that not everyone killed is killed by the americans. These reports are automatically accepted as being proof enough that all the deaths are caused by the americans to the anti-war goons.

Regards

Mailman

[Prometheus]

Saddam is estimated to have killed at least 200,000 of his own people purely for personal, political, or sadistic reasons since coming to power in 1979. Thats's 8333 per year for 24 years.

That's not counting the dead from Saddam's various wars, which bring the figure in the million range. Of course, this counts soldiers, so it's not the best comparison. This brings the figure to a staggering average of 41,666 per year.

Source: NY Times, referenced here
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html

Reasonable estimates for civilian casualties from the American invasion range from 5,000 to 10,000 over the course of 2 years.

Source http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html

That's 2500 to 5000 per year. Prometheus came up with 3984, far less than under Saddam.




As Secret Squirrel said before, this 5,000 to 10,000 are only from the "major combat operations" in 2003.


We've got to remember that while terrible, not only is the death rate better than under Saddam, but it is temporary. Iraq WILL be a democracy, it WILL be peaceful, and Iraq WILL be a model for others in the area to strive for. Every wacko in the middle east knows this, so they are doing their utmost through committing and supporting indiscriminate killing to derail the process.

Well... your comparison with victims of Saddam isn't correct.

You've calculated that Saddam killed 8333 civilians a year. The American occupation of Iraq killed 25,000 : 2 1/3 = 10,714 civilians a year. Of course, not all of them are killed by Americans, but they are killed as a consequence of the American led war. Without the war no insurgency. Without insurgency no terror attacks. Without terror attacks no dead civilians.

If we want to be sarcastic we can say that more civilians are killed p.a. under the American occupation than under the Saddam-Regime. Sure the total number is much smaller, but that's only a question of time. Saddam was in power for 24 years. So let's wait till March 2027 and compare the figures again.

2027 is also a realistic date for your vision of a democratic, stable and peaceful Iraq which is a model for the neighbours. But I seriously doubt that the American society is willing to pay the bloody price for further 22 years of war in Iraq.

[Argyll]

I don't think anyone thought the whole lot were killed by the US Military,it's the breakdown that they couldn't accept!!

[Tim Nice But Dim]

I came across an interesting article from the Ecomomist on this subject called Counting the casualties (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3352814). It was published in November last year, and concluded that there was a "90% certainty that more than 40,000 Iraqis have died."

[seva108]

Saddam is estimated to have killed at least 200,000 of his own people purely for personal, political, or sadistic reasons since coming to power in 1979. Thats's 8333 per year for 24 years.

That's not counting the dead from Saddam's various wars, which bring the figure in the million range. Of course, this counts soldiers, so it's not the best comparison. This brings the figure to a staggering average of 41,666 per year.

Source: NY Times, referenced here
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html

Reasonable estimates for civilian casualties from the American invasion range from 5,000 to 10,000 over the course of 2 years.

Source http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html

That's 2500 to 5000 per year. Prometheus came up with 3984, far less than under Saddam.




As Secret Squirrel said before, this 5,000 to 10,000 are only from the "major combat operations" in 2003.


We've got to remember that while terrible, not only is the death rate better than under Saddam, but it is temporary. Iraq WILL be a democracy, it WILL be peaceful, and Iraq WILL be a model for others in the area to strive for. Every wacko in the middle east knows this, so they are doing their utmost through committing and supporting indiscriminate killing to derail the process.

Well... your comparison with victims of Saddam isn't correct.

You've calculated that Saddam killed 8333 civilians a year. The American occupation of Iraq killed 25,000 : 2 1/3 = 10,714 civilians a year. Of course, not all of them are killed by Americans, but they are killed as a consequence of the American led war. Without the war no insurgency. Without insurgency no terror attacks. Without terror attacks no dead civilians.

If we want to be sarcastic we can say that more civilians are killed p.a. under the American occupation than under the Saddam-Regime. Sure the total number is much smaller, but that's only a question of time. Saddam was in power for 24 years. So let's wait till March 2027 and compare the figures again.

2027 is also a realistic date for your vision of a democratic, stable and peaceful Iraq which is a model for the neighbours. But I seriously doubt that the American society is willing to pay the bloody price for further 22 years of war in Iraq.



Well... your comparison with victims of Saddam isn't correct.

You've calculated that Saddam killed 8333 civilians a year. The American occupation of Iraq killed 25,000 : 2 1/3 = 10,714 civilians a year. Of course, not all of them are killed by Americans, but they are killed as a consequence of the American led war. Without the war no insurgency. Without insurgency no terror attacks. Without terror attacks no dead civilians.

OH BULL****!!!!!!

I suppose the victim of a robbery is at fault for carrying a wallet? Thanks for an expose in leftist logic. The criminal is never at fault for their crime.

Look, you sick freak, a mass murderer is responsible for his crime. Terrorists that blow up car bombs at bus stations, and then PLAN and EXECUTE another bomb at the hospital where the wounded are taken are simply human Assholes that need to be cleaned from the gene pool. The US is there specifically to fight these pricks. It is simply insanity that only a commited leftist could conceive to blame America for the vile acts that terrorists are commiting in Iraq.

By that logic, I guess the WTC 9/11 attack is America's fault too? So let's tack that on the civilian death toll of Gulf War I, right?


2027 is also a realistic date for your vision of a democratic, stable and peaceful Iraq which is a model for the neighbours. But I seriously doubt that the American society is willing to pay the bloody price for further 22 years of war in Iraq.

Why do I get the feeling you go to bed at night praying for that? You sick hateful impotent loser.

Iraq will be free and prosperous within 3-5 years, and the sick part is, you will be depressed by that.

[Iho]

Man, I love how everyone quotes the figures on how many people Sadam killed as justifiction for the smaller amount the US have killed. WTF kind of logic is that? We shouldn't be killing ANY civilians point blank. Why is it acceptible to kill XXX thousand, as long as its less than Sadam??

You wouldn't drop bombs onto a house in your own country because you think there *might* be bad guys in there, so why the **** do it in someone elses country??

I really fail to see how some people can think this is ok, I really do.

As far as the Insurgents go, too, the US enters another country forcefully to protect them (for their own good - they just don't know it yet) and you get insurgents swarming to Iraq to fight the US. Explain to me how exactly this wasn't unavoidable, concidering there are NO WMD's there, and there is no need for the Coalition's continiued presence.

Label me what you will, but its just common ****ing sense, really.

[seva108]

Your understanding of military history is truly impressive. Look man, civilians die in combat. There has never been a military that has dedicated as much effort or been as successful in reducing civilian casualties as that of the US.

Saddam's regime was a monstrous terror on Iraqis, and it's a good thing that it's gone. The implication that this present (temporary) state is worse than Saddam is outrageous.

Iraq will be a democracy, and will be free and economically prosperous, and will be an influence for moderation and freedom in the Middle East. Sorry about that!

[hauptman]

Comparing to other wars these casualties are pretty low imho.
However, most problem is that most US soilders haven't been trained in such situations which happen every day in Iraq and where civilists are shot ...

And in near future the Iraq will stabilize and all problems will be gone.

[Iho]

Great. So what country are we forcefully converting to democracy next?

[Inquisitor]

And in near future the Iraq will stabilize and all problems will be gone.

LOL!

the real **** will happen when coalition forces will be gone. Just wait and you'll see

[rocket13]

Comparing to other wars these casualties are pretty low imho.
However, most problem is that most US soilders haven't been trained in such situations which happen every day in Iraq and where civilists are shot ...

And in near future the Iraq will stabilize and all problems will be gone.


Iraq is doomed to fail. There consitution is not secular but based on Islamic law. What the USA didn't want initially but is willing to allow just have something. So to me, they are already doomed to failure. Once we leave, if we ever leave, that place will collapse or go the way of Iran.

[Umm-Qasr]

Comparing to other wars these casualties are pretty low imho.
However, most problem is that most US soilders haven't been trained in such situations which happen every day in Iraq and where civilists are shot ...

And in near future the Iraq will stabilize and all problems will be gone.


Iraq is doomed to fail. There consitution is not secular but based on Islamic law. What the USA didn't want initially but is willing to allow just have something. So to me, they are already doomed to failure. Once we leave, if we ever leave, that place will collapse or go the way of Iran.It will not be an Islamic state: Islam will be a major source for legislation. Like Malaysia, Singapore, UAE etc etc ...

[rocket13]

Didn't say Islamic state , I said based on Islamic law. Either way the chances of this coming out pretty in the long run are slim.