Quote:

Some folks would argue that the coalition forces are to blame for each one of the deaths, since those people possibly wouldn't be dead had the invasion not taken place.

Other folks would argue that the coalition forces are only to blame for deaths caused directly by them, not deaths caused indirectly due to the instability created by the invasion.

Yet others would argue that the coalition forces are only to blame for military deaths.

It's a complicated issue, and one that simply cannot be boiled down to death tolls, but at the same time I do believe death tolls should be part of the equation.

I don't know how much this post has brought to the discussion, but I thought my findings were interesting and wanted to share them with you guys - since you're obviously interested in this sort of thing.

KM

Quote:
IMO the current problems in Iraq are based on serious mistakes made by the US administration following the invasion of Iraq. One might be for or against the invasion of Iraq but I guess everybody has to admit that things went terribly wrong once the US were there. Some might call it a lack of understanding of this country others purley ingnorance or incompetence, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter, because not one dead person will come alive again.

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Wrong again.  You can argue all day long as to whether or not we should have gone to war, but after the fact of going to war, you get on the same page and go all out to win it, every time.  By your logic, we'd be pulling out with the job unfinished, and that makes all the sacrifices made worthless.

I respectfully disagree Rifter.  What the "job" is has never been clearly defined. 

The sacrifices of those who went did accomplish what we orginally set out to do. 

There are no WMDs in Iraq. 

Hussein is dead and gone.

Iraq is free to choose it's own destiny.

The question is, will the war be a net benefit to the US? 

I don't think there's a clearly defined "win" in that sense no matter how we look at it.  Hussein was evil, but his ambitions were local.  Iraq was a stable, secular country that helped to contain Iran.  In destablizing it we opened doors for terrorists and provided them with a powerful recruiting tool. 

In any case, the decision to leave Iraq will eventually be forced on us by the Iraqis themselves.  They do not want us to remain there indefinately.  I think the best we can hope for is a stable country that based on geography and common religion is closer to Iran philosophically than us.  How much desire and ability they will have to combat terrorists within their borders is open to debate.

I hope I'm wrong, but that's my feeling on the subject. 

And with that, I'm done with Iraq.  We're going over things that everyone has pretty much gotten set in their own minds and further discussion will only cause bad feelings.  It's simply too emotional for many of us.  (Including myself here.  A woman I care for very much is due to be deployed in January.)

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
Quoting Dan W:

Quote:

I think you mean to direct that to Wikipedia. Those are the number they report. I did not edit their list.

Also in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_deaths

Thee table below summarizes the Iraq War casualty surveys.
Survey                              Iraqi deaths                                   March 2003 to...
Iraqi Health Ministry survey 151,000 violent deaths out of 400,000 excess deaths due to the war. June 2006
Lancet survey                 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths. June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. August 2007

Which is to say that nobody really knows how many there are, nor how many of those civilians were actually militia members and members of terrorist cells.  Nor does it address specifics as to how many were actually due to collateral damage and how many were murdered by militia or al Queda sympathizers.

There were no militia members, terrorist cells or Quaida sympathizers before the US invaded Iraq. And what does the term 'collateral damage' mean, innocent civilians?

Quote:
Quoting sugarjoe:

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:
Oh, really?  Maybe you should talk to some people who are actually IN the military and who have been over there.  There have been news reports on the documents found that prove beyond a doubt that al Queda and Saddam's representatives were thick as thieves.  Oh, and maybe you remember a gent named Muqtada el Sadr?  He is the head of the largest militia faction in Iraq and was there long before we arrived.  Even Saddam didn't try to disarm his bunch.

There was NO connection between Iraq and al Quaida ( 'Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed', Washington Post). Before the US invasion Muqtada al-Sadr was not significant. 'The rise of Muqtada has been one of the surprises of the four years since the US invaded.' (The Independent).

Now that is interesting, sugarjoe. It may well have been a surprise to The Independent, but it surprised very few with any knowledge of the region. I love the way the media outlets are regarded as information Gods, when about half the time they in reality know very little. .

Skip

Quote:
  He didn't back you up.