Why should we cut Saddam a break?

[tasty]

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

A very professional, daily-updated site with the latest in civilian death estimates.

http://dailykos.com/

Concentrates more on deaths in our armed forces.

We may not be trying to kill civilians, but 500-600 dead is certainly nothing to scoff at.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Bondo, you sound like Iraqi TV. To think that we targeted a marketplace is preposterous unless Saddam himself was walking through it.

The point wasn't that we intentionally targeted innocents, it was that we aren't as precise as we claim.

Also, if you think Saddam can only get support through force, why would Iraqis from other countries with no reason to do so, go INTO Iraq to fight the coalition.  Because they want to fight for their country.  No one is forcing them to do it...well, no one but the coalition.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Tasty, how many of those body counts were created by Saddam and his armed forces? We know of at least 50 in the market bombing that were caused by his own weaponry, and all the civilians he is shooting in and around other towns such as Basra.

As for the statistics about JDAM weaponry, that is misleading because those stats were taken from open field operations, not urban bombing. The fact of the matter is that most of the shrapnel is absorbed in the intial blast by the building that was targeted, that is why you see mainly targets destroyed with nothing happening to surrounding buildings.

Bondo, you probably want to qualify some statements, because that looked like you said we were targeting them. Sure, not all weapons 100% accurate, but I would rather be using these than conventional weaponry.

As for the minority of Iraqi's returning home, they are because of what Cossack was saying in another thread - they view their country is being invaded, and they fight for their land and heritage, not for Saddam.

[The Ghost of Bondo]

As for the minority of Iraqi's returning home, they are because of what Cossack was saying in another thread - they view their country is being invaded, and they fight for their land and heritage, not for Saddam.

Doesn't change that they are fighting the coalition without being put under duress by Saddam which was a claim being made...that he gets defense through coersion.  This being filed under if they are an enemy of my enemy they are my friend philosophy, anyone fighting the coalition are allies even if they hate each other.

[tasty]

Sin, the sources the website uses are listed plainly for all to see. There are a variety of US, British, and international sources that are all used. Since they have different figures, the "Maximum" & "Minimum" death counts are created. Civilian deaths are civilian deaths, and I don't think you can make the argument that the vast majority of them aren't being caused by the presence of coalition troops in Iraq.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Tasty, we do not know what the difference would be with or without coalition troops there because we don't know how many people he and his army killed daily.

For his army to shoot civilians in the back inflates that number significantly - the way that statistic was presented was if the coalition troops had gone in and killed all of them.

[Snipes]

I totally agree  

[jn.loudnotes]

Sin - everything I've seen suggests that the majority of those deaths are from US attacks.

[tasty]

Yeah link me to something about his troops killing civilians AFTER the start of the war, I haven't heard anything of it. For one thing, it doesn't make any sense. Why would he kill potential soldiers? Also, how would journalists get ahold of civilian deaths that weren't connected with the US? They are "embedded" in the US army, so I don't see how deaths that happen outside of US military action could be covered by them.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

The women, elderly, and children are not potential soldiers. I guess you didn't see it on TV beore it was pulled, but Sky News showed civilians getting mowed down by Iraqi gunfire as they tried to leave Basra - and I doubt that was it.

Even the guy who helped rescue our POW told tales of the civilians who waved at passing US choppers and planes getting shot by the Fedayeen just because they waved.

Also, the Baghdad market bombings were probably included in that number, and it was already shown that Iraqi SAM's came crashing back to the ground and caused it, not Coalition airstrikes like they have tried to pin it on (all but one of these bombings has been totally confirmed to my knowledge).

Last but not least, I bet human shields are counted in those civilian counts, and they shouldn't count - anyone who stands near a military target intentionally should themselves be considered a target, and if not a civilian death caused by the enemy (in this case Saddam).

[tasty]

I think human shields should count. If people are willing to martyr themselves for their country, then we should at least have the respect to count them among the civilian deceased, even if it makes our troops look more careless than they really are.

I find this article to be an interesting look at Iraqi liberation and media coverage of this war - and its relevant to this conversation: Liberation or Libation?

Tim Wise has written some great stuff on the war, you can read the rest of his war articles through the links on the side of this article.

[Mr.Wuggles]

omg did u guys see the footage on tv of a rocket bounced off the ground and hit an iraqi tank?? mahahahahhahahah!!!!

[Brain]

tasty, the only thing a human shield is is a soldier that doen't have a gun pointed at you. they knew that they had a very good chance of dying. they expected to die. you could make a case that they wanted to die. you average civillian doesn't. your average civillian doesn't intend to walk in infront of someone who is armed. they stay the hell away.  now, explain why behavior like that sould allow them to be treated as a 'civilian casualty'

(yes, i know that sounds cold an uncompassionate, but i believe that anyone who doesnt have the common sense to get out of the way of a man with a gun aimed through you doesnt deserve to live)

[The Ghost of Bondo]

I've said it before, every death in this war can be attributed to the US.  If there was no war, the Iraqis wouldn't have missles misfiring or be killing civillians who welcome the US.  Consider them hostages and Saddam is holding a gun to their heads telling the US not to take a step closer.  When the US steps closer he pulls the trigger.  The death is thus a result of the US stepping closer even if they didn't pull the trigger themselves.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Which brings me back to my original point.

Tasty, we do not know what the difference would be with or without coalition troops there because we don't know how many people he and his army killed daily.

[jn.loudnotes]

Forget the numbers, it's indisputable that the war has caused the deaths of some civilians who would not otherwise have died.

Human shields really aren't civilians, since they aren't Iraqis as well, but it's not fair to count them as combatants either.  

Sin and Brain -

anyone who stands near a military target intentionally should themselves be considered a target

anyone who doesnt have the common sense to get out of the way of a man with a gun aimed through you doesnt deserve to live

It's really a shame that their lives were apparently meaningless.  How do you feel about tree-sitters who chain themselves to trees in forests to prevent logging?  Do you believe that by placing themselves in the path of a bulldozer, they forfeit their right to life?  

Whether you agree with their cause or not, you have to respect the "shields" for making a statement, foolishly or not.  Frankly I think it's sad that our government took no real notice of them.  

Human shields: they are American citizens, they are non-combatants, they gave no aid or comfort to the enemy, and they were murdered by the government they sought to preserve.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Loudnotes, if it is us killing human shields or them shooting down our planes and killing our pilots, I would kill them anyday of the week.

This isn't like the tree huggers who save trees, this is about people putting their lives on the line to protect an offensive weapon. If there were a sniper int he tree shotting at us, and a tree hugger trying to save the tree, I would say lets take down the tree - just because they are trying to make a point or a statement isn't our fault if what they are trying to protect is dangerous to us.

[jn.loudnotes]

Ah, but what if their point is that it isn't actually dangerous to us?

What if the sniper in the tree has no ammunition in his gun?  Or he's pointing it elsewhere?  

The human shields don't enable Iraq to shoot down US planes unless those planes happen to be bombing Iraq anyway.  So if the bombs don't fall, everyone wins out.  That, at least, is their rationale.  And I still find it hard to imagine the world post-war in better condition than it was at the start.

Anyone out there have any glossy views of the future?

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

Loudnotes, what youa re saying to is amount to saying that if we weren't int he war, no one would die. Yes, that's true, but that doesn't pertain to this argument.

I said that the sniper was shooting at us, like the Iraqi SAM and AAA sites are against our pilots. However, these human shields decide to place themselves next to these weapons thinking that we wont attack if they are by it, and they are wrong. We value the lives of our military much more than we do of any human shield, and they seal their fate by trying to hopelessly protect something they know we would destroy.

As for your comment about post-war Iraq, once the dust has settled and reconstruction begins, it will be muchbetter than anything Iraq was under Saddam Hussein. Just the humanitarian facts alone should prove this - 60% of Iraq was dependant on outside sources of food to feed themselves (think along the lines of Oil for food prog.) under Saddam. Contrast that with the relative modern lifestyles of Kurds living in major population centers and there is no doubt that post war Iraq will be better than anything that happened under Saddam Hussein.

[Brain]

to reply to your first post loud. they have forfitted their right to common sense. they knew full well what they were doing, there for they cannot be treated as a total innocent. i have little sympathy for those that take knowingly risky actions and then get injured or killed. they knew the risks, they took those chances, they lost the gamble with fate.

if these people happend to be forced to live there, or were being somehow forced to do this, i would have a very different view. but from the info i have, this is my opinion.

the second posat. you're streching alittle there loud, just so sin  is wrong. i consider a sniper someone with an intent to kill and the power to do so.  if he is aiming elsewhere or is with out ammo to begin with, why would we be concerened with this spot in the first place? the milatary doesnt just go blowing people away hen they come out of their houses in the morning just because they came out of random house b that has no stragic importance what so ever.  by changing the fact that the sniper was not a threat, you changed the situation, and thus invalidated sin's post

i apologize  for any incohesiveness, it's late here