Estimated casualties of a war on Iraq: 1 million people!

**Bereta_Eder** · January 26, 2003, 19:18

Just for oil...

Since there seems to be no way to stop it, I at least hope that the US/UK will do it without a UN mandate.

I'm amazed at the UK I have to say.
Most Brits don't want to, yet they let their government do as it pleases. It is confusing.

And from the Brits here, it is clear that they do not share the American "mind". Yet their government acts like it is a willfull errant boy of the US.

Why?

Let us at least hope that there will be no UN mandate.

Interests aside, 1 million of people will die from US/UK bombs and whatever "interests" speak against a war, I hope they will be heard and prevail, even though I do not see it happening

At least war on Iraq WITHOUT a UN mandate

I Hope France and Germany will hold strong and continue to make Europe proud.

**Sonic** · January 26, 2003, 19:22

I agree with you paiktis22 completely.

**Sonic** · January 26, 2003, 19:23

And this leftist government (of my country) is even thinking about sending troops to Iraq!

**Jon Miller** · January 26, 2003, 19:25

it isto stop more deaths by Saddam

Jon Miller

**Provost Harrison** · January 26, 2003, 19:27

Stop 1000000 deaths by Saddam? I doubt it.

**Sonic** · January 26, 2003, 19:28

Jon Miller, Saddam didn't killed this much. He is no Stalin, no Hitler and no Pol Pot. He is a dictator, but he is not the cruel one.

**Jon Miller** · January 26, 2003, 19:30

but all those iraqis have died since gulf war 1

and all those whod ied in the iran war

and all those who died in the gulf war 1

those are all asking for saddam to be removed

Jon Miller

**Edan** · January 26, 2003, 19:33

Originally posted by Sonic
Jon Miller, Saddam didn't killed this much. He is no Stalin, no Hitler and no Pol Pot. He is a dictator, but he is not the cruel one.

He's killed nearly 1 million in the Iraq-Iran war, and killed hundreds of thousands in his own country in the 80s and 90s (and continues to do so by paying for his military at the expense of his people.)

I find the statement "he is not the cruel one" most amusing.

I'm very skeptical of a 1 million casualty figure for Gulf War 2 - unless Saddam starts using WMDs.

**Tripledoc** · January 26, 2003, 19:42

"Kill one man and you are a murderer. Kill a million and you are a statesman."

I can't remember who said that.

**Sandman** · January 26, 2003, 19:48

It could be the first big genocide of the 21st Century.

**Sonic** · January 26, 2003, 19:49

Edan, do you know how many people democracies killed? How many people killed Israel (Palestinians), how many Russia (Chechens), how many USA itself (Amerindians)? Many dictatorships, considered "good" by USA also killed many more people than Saddam. You see, to say that dictator was "cruel" he has to be killed really many people. And wars doesn't counts here. If they would, then probably USA would be the biggest "killer" in XX century (WW1, WW2, Korean war, Vietnam war, Gulf war, bombings of Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, etc.).

**Jon Miller** · January 26, 2003, 19:50

ha ha ha ha ha

Jon Miller

**Sandman** · January 26, 2003, 19:53

I think that the USA's body count for the 20th Century is much lower than some other countries, Sonic, only single figure millions.

**Shi Huangdi** · January 26, 2003, 19:56

Whos estimation of 1 million is this? Don't take this figure at face value.

**Zkribbler** · January 26, 2003, 20:07

29% of Americans say they'd support an invasion even without a U.N. resolution. The numbers in Britain are similarly anemic.

For Bush to attack with so little popular support, he'd have to be totally brainless and have balls the size of Jupiter. It ain't gonna happen.

**loinburger** · January 26, 2003, 20:08

The casualties from the first war were 1/10 that estimate. How'd the estimate jump so high? Are they assuming that the US is going to nuke them or something?

**Edan** · January 26, 2003, 20:17

Originally posted by Sonic
How many people killed Israel (Palestinians)?

Over the past 55 years, and numerous wars, Israelis have killed an estimated 50-100k arabs (that includes Syrians, Egyptians, Lebenese, Jodanians, Iraqi's, Saudis, etc)

Over the past 2.5 year, they have killed about 1.5 thousand Palestinians (not counting Palestinian suicide bombers that have killed themselves, Palestinian victims of Palestinian terror attacks and Palestinians killed by other Palestinians because they were considered "traitors"). Of that 1.5, a majority that have been killed have been gunman and terrorists - and I have no regreats for their deaths. Of the remaining, there have been about, IIRC, something like eight or nine hundred civilian deaths. Considering the Palestinians have killed nearly that many civilians, and Israel has a very modern military while the Palestinians have terror groups, I think I can say that the Palestinians are trying harder to kill Israelis than the Israelis are trying to kill Palestinians. Especially since Israel could easily kill hundreds of thousands or millions of Palestinians in well under the past 2.5 years (as could any modern military).

And wars doesn't counts here.

OK. Then Israel, at an extreme upperbound, I would say that Israel has killed less then 10,000 Palestinians, over the past 55 years (and that number seems extremely excessive). Of course, I would consider the latest violence a war, which would bring that number down.

**JCG** · January 26, 2003, 20:18

It won't be a cheap war, but 1 million is a huge stretch....

**Edan** · January 26, 2003, 20:20

**SlowwHand** · January 26, 2003, 20:23

Originally posted by paiktis22
Just for oil...

Since there seems to be no way to stop it, I at least hope that the US/UK will do it without a UN mandate.

I'm amazed at the UK I have to say.
Most Brits don't want to, yet they let their government do as it pleases. It is confusing.

And from the Brits here, it is clear that they do not share the American "mind". Yet their government acts like it is a willfull errant boy of the US.

Why?

Let us at least hope that there will be no UN mandate.

Interests aside, 1 million of people will die from US/UK bombs and whatever "interests" speak against a war, I hope they will be heard and prevail, even though I do not see it happening

At least war on Iraq WITHOUT a UN mandate

I Hope France and Germany will hold strong and continue to make Europe proud.

You make many points. None of which are accurate.

**raghar** · January 26, 2003, 20:26

Originally posted by loinburger
The casualties from the first war were 1/10 that estimate. How'd the estimate jump so high? Are they assuming that the US is going to nuke them or something?

500 Tomahawks, few years of occupation, city fighting, famine, It could be well more than so called 1 mill. It could be 2.5 mill, or it could be 350 000. It depends what do you count.

What about 1/10 population more or less directly dead?

**loinburger** · January 26, 2003, 20:33

The US is not in occupation mode. Witness Afghanistan.

It is also not in "ground-fighting extraordinaire" mode, it's in "bomb the **** out of them" mode. Witness nearly every military action by the US in the past ten-odd years.

I don't see how the casualties can jump that high short of nukes, given the current military mindset in action.

**Sonic** · January 26, 2003, 21:12

Edan, at about 70s Israel killed 26 Palestinians for each Israeli casualty, excluding suicide bombers. In 2001, the number came to 3 Palestinians per 1 Jew. Now the number of killed Palestinians for one Jew increased again by much. Thus it is completely innacurate to say that Jews killed as many Palestinians as Palestinians killed Jews. BTW, this count is not counting many "unofficial" Palestinian deaths, beatings by settlers, deaths because of lack of food/water, unauthorised force, etc.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 26, 2003, 21:16

Just for oil?

You understand nothing about this war. If anything, it is decidedly NOT about oil at all.

**Sonic** · January 26, 2003, 21:22

Imran Siddiqui, understand the difference between "official politics" and "official causes" and the realpolitik. Facts are - US oil is gonna to deplete soon and so is oil in other states supporting USA. In 2050, only Saudi Arabia and Iraq will have oil, but Arabs will gain full control of the market much sooner actually. Thus USA needs to ensure it is not going to be left without this resource. This is the main cause of war. There are much worse dictators than Saddam all over the world. Kim Yong Il could be a good example, but there are much more. Just most of these dictatorships doesn't has oil thus they doesn't interests USA.

**Imran Siddiqui** · January 26, 2003, 21:26

That's bullshit. I know about realpolitik and it isn't working here. This war is all about getting Saddam, this person that is trying to stick his middle finger at the US, out. It has very, very little to do with oil.

HUGE oil deposits are being discovered in Russia (Siberia) and under the Caspian. The US may not need anymore Arab oil. Of course the US does not use much oil from the Mid East (most from the Americas).

**Edan** · January 26, 2003, 21:26

Originally posted by Sonic
Edan, at about 70s Israel killed 26 Palestinians for each Israeli casualty, excluding suicide bombers.

Where are you getting these statistics from? And what are your totals, anyway? I assume they're greater than the 1 million of Saddams.

**DinoDoc** · January 26, 2003, 21:34

If we are going to fight an oil war as people here keep saying, why are US troops in the Middle East and not heading to Venezuela?

**Edan** · January 26, 2003, 21:36

Originally posted by DinoDoc
If we are going to fight an oil war as people here keep saying, why are US troops in the Middle East and not heading to Venezuela?

Because Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are even easier to conquer?

**DinoDoc** · January 26, 2003, 21:40

Originally posted by Edan
Because Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are even easier to conquer?

But with Venezuela, we don't have to bother with the pretense of going to the UN. Being the sole power in the region means that we can go for a straight war of conquest and set up our own puppet government straight away.