Official: 150,000 Iraqis killed by insurgents

Discussion in 'Politics' started by StraightAndNarrow, Nov 9, 2006.

  1. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    Official: 150,000 Iraqis killed by insurgents
    Basis of Iraqi health minister's estimate since March 2003 is unclear
    The Associated Press
    Updated: 6:23 p.m. ET Nov 9, 2006
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15642324/

    VIENNA, Austria - About 150,000 Iraqis have been killed by insurgents since the U.S.-led invasion more than three years ago, a senior Iraqi official said Thursday.
    For every person killed about three have been wounded in violence since the war started in March 2003, Iraq’s Health Minister Ali al-Shemari told reporters in Vienna.

    The 150,000 — which is three times most other estimates — was the first overall casualty figure for the war to be released by the Iraqi government, which took office on May 20.

    **************************************************************

    The loss of 2500 American soldiers is a trejedy in Iraq. But that pales by comparison with the recent estimate of 150,000 Iraquis killed and 450,000 wounded. Are Iraquis human beings too? Or don't they count?
     
  2. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting, I guess we're not winning the hearts and minds at that rate.
     
  3. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Strange thing. When Germany bombed London for an entire year and every day, they smiled. When we bombed Berlin and other cities, they cried foul because civilians, men, women and children were killed.

    I doubt the figures, but it is a fact of war; people die and are wounded.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  4. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jim

    Great post!

    And I will go further - You did not have thousands of British citizens helping the enemy . . .

    If the Iraqis would turn in all of their family that were 'criminals' that saddam let loose to start the war . . . and if they turned in the foreign freedom fighters . . .

    I would dare say, that the total casualty count would have been under 30,000 . . . including Allied troops . . .

    If they want to kill each other, there is not much we can do about it.

    Freedom is never free and those that cry for freedom without the courage to live and die for it - will never be free.

     
  5. LeBuick

    LeBuick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    11,537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Whose enemy, ours or theirs? How do we tell the friendlies from the enemy?

    The kill um all and let God sort um out theory isn't working to well.
     
  6. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Saddam released almost all of his criminals . . . murderers, rapists, & thieves.

    Then there has been an influx of 'foreign freedom' fighters . . .

    Yes, it is difficult for us to tell them apart - but to ME Muslims the tribal differences are readily aperent . . . they just gotta want some peace bad enough to quit helping the enemy - even if the enemy is family.

    IMHO

    PS - I know God will sort them out . . . and I apologize if I used such a barbaric reference - but, that truthfully would not work.

     
  7. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Considering that saddam released 20,000 criminals* . . . and foreign terrorists poured into the country, I would say that 150,000 US troops with the assistance of the Iraqi police have kept the enemy kill ration at less than 3 or 5 to one . . . and the enemy is having to target large groups of civilians and children to even acheive that . . .

    * http://www.mdcbowen.org/cobb/archives/001251.html

    http://www.megafortress.com/newsletter/nov04.htm

     
  8. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,896
    Likes Received:
    294
    They don't have to kill each other, but they do. Your anger is misdirected.
     
  9. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3
    That's why wars should be started only when absolutely necessary, when everything else fails. We shouldn't start a war fumbling for the reason why we started it like Bush did.
     
  10. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    So your point is that if evil people fight against us we should quit and let them have their way?

    Why don't we apply that principle to murderers and rapists in our own country? If a murderer kills someone then obviously we shouldn't pursue them, right? We might hurt them or someone might accidentally get in the way and be hurt, right? No. We pursue justice because we know that in spite of the risks the costs of not doing so are much higher.

    Defeating the enemy in Iraq has risks and costs... the alternative though is much more costly to everyone including common Iraqi citizen.

    Do you think more Iraqis would die if we win and establish some form of stable representative gov't or if the enemy wins and establishes a totalitarian state. This would be the best they'd do since their goal isn't to win for Iraq or its people but rather to just defeat the US.

    Of course they are people.

    Should we have quit fighting Hitler because innocent people were dying? In fact, innocent people were dying from American bombs in their German homes. Should we have quit? Are the principles of freedom and human rights not important enough to fight for?

    Do you really believe that appeasement of violent, oppressive idealist fanatics is going to be better than defeating them?
     
    #10 Scott J, Nov 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2006
  11. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh you mean like WW2 when Chamberlin et al appeased the Hitler until it was "absolutely necessary" to stop him. Of course then it was too late... and cost 60 million lives over a period just slightly longer than we've been in Iraq.

    Of course there is a key difference. Hitler didn't have any access at all to nuclear weapons. All evidence says that Saddam had nuclear ambitions as well as the willingness to attack his neighbors.
     
  12. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Quote:
    Oh you mean like WW2 when Chamberlin et al appeased the Hitler until it was "absolutely necessary" to stop him. Of course then it was too late...
    ------------------------------------------------

    Don't talk so foolish unless you were there. Chamberlain bought us time to prepare for war. England was not ready for war. When Chamberlain came back to England he made public statements such as "peace in our time", but we all knew better in England. He also started the machinery to make war weapons, build aircraft and other weapons. The Home Guard was esablished and armed, with battles stations set up on the coasts. We had to get ready.

    Secondly. check out what President Roosevelt had to say about Hitler...."He was the right leader for Germany, and was doing marvellously....." (Not a direct quote, but correct in essence.

    Joseph Kennedy, Ambassador to England had to be expelled from England because he was constantly praising Hitler in public.

    History only recorded what Mr. Chamberlain said publicly, but we Englishmen knew exactly what he was saying,,,and doing.

    By 1939, we were at least somewhat ready for a German assault, and we did a rather marvellous job, given the fact we were LEFT ON OUR OWN for three years of war.

    Cheers,

    Jim

    PS. I was there!
     
    #12 Jim1999, Nov 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2006
  13. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    I guess the history books were badly mistaken or worse lying about the negotiations that allowed Hitler to piecemeal Europe, huh? I guess he and the other European leaders bear no responsibility for allowing Hitler to arm Germany in the first place though they knew full well he was doing it, right?

    The Iraq action directly parallels the pre-emptive action that should have taken place in the mid-1930's to prevent the massive death and destruction that ensued. Who knows, there might have even been a couple of hundred thousand casualties in removing Hitler and his Nazi henchmen... probably would've been. But would it have been worth it to prevent the destruction and death in just the bombing of London alone wouldn't it? It would have been worth it to prevent the death and destruction wrought on Dresden and numerous other German cities for that matter.

    You will not find me an FDR fan. He is directly responsible for popularizing many of the unconstitutional socialistic programs that are driving our nation down and consuming our freedoms.

    Yes. And?

    I am by no means exhonorating American politicians of that time... the most prominent of whom were liberal leaning Democrats

    Yes. That was one of the more shameful betrayals the US ever committed.

    Roosevelt was not nearly the heroic icon liberals have made of him. He lacked scrupples.

    God bless you.
     
    #13 Scott J, Nov 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2006
  14. StraightAndNarrow

    StraightAndNarrow
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2003
    Messages:
    2,508
    Likes Received:
    3

    I'm saying that when the enemy is in Afghanastan you shouldn't pull out half your troops and send them to Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11. We let our real enemies get away by doing that. For your analogy, the question would be why didn't we withdraw from the war against Hitler to attack Russia, preempting the war against communism?
     
  15. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a very convenient answer in retrospect. In real time, you had a bloody dictator who had shown no restraint in using WMD's thumbing his nose at UN inspectors and thwarting inspection efforts less than 6 months after 9/11.

    The intelligency agencies of the world uniformly agreed that Saddam had WMD's... and he said himself that he wanted to sponsor terrorism against the west per V Putin.

    I wish folks like you would put yourself in Bush's shoes for one minute... What would you do? 9/11 had just happened. Saddam celebrated the result and stated a desire to support more terrorism. Saddam was evading the inspectors and preparing to kick them out. Summer was coming and your generals tell you that 10's of thousands more of your troops would die in a summer invasion under WMD threat... and that the action would probably fail.

    What's your decision? Wait? What if the intel is true? What if Saddam uses the cover of summer to supply terrorists around the world with chemical and biological weapons? Can you wait? Is that really a risk the responsible leader of the free world could afford to take?

    NO. It isn't. He did the only prudent thing that could have been done at the time. He's paid the price for thousands of experts that were wrong... but given the info he had he did what he had to do to protect YOUR LIFE.


    Our real enemies say that Iraq is the center of the war... Just read their comments. Where do you think it would be if not there? NY maybe? How about NJ?
    No it wouldn't. That's idiocy or else ignorance.

    We didn't fight a hot war against the communists. Had the option been available, perhaps it would have been smart to prevent the 1917 takeover. Nonetheless, Reagan following the lead of JFK defeated the Soviets... dragging liberals along kicking and screaming. Now reports are out that they may have done worse than that. Ted Kennedy may have colluded with them to undermine US policy.
     

Share This Page

Loading...