Baghdad civilian casualties, DU, etc.

[chequita guevara]

The L.A. Times is reporting that 1,700 people were killed in Baghdad by the US invasion, 8,000 were wounded, and 1,000 are still missing. That's just the capital.

Baghdad's Death Toll Assessed

In the meantime, the Pentagon indirectly admits that DU is dangerous by ordering soldiers to stay away from areas contaminated with DU.

Remains of toxic bullets litter Iraq

[Dinner]

What did they base their count on? Saddam's claims? Are they counting total deaths or just military deaths or just civilian deaths?

[Winston]

It's going to be another Vietnam!

[Dinner]

What happened to the hundreds of thousands of people who were going to die during the carpet bombing?

[Jac de Molay]

We're doing this for their own good.

[Az]

That's pretty lame, Che.

You're like stacking up everything you pick up around, against the war, and if that's all you have, that's rather pityful.

[Ming]

It's really sad... I think the liberals were really disappointed at how few people died compared to their predictions.

Every life lost in the conflict is sad... no matter who it was... I'm just glad that the number wasn't any higher.

[Agathon]

Let's not forget that most of us who opposed the war opposed it because of what would happen afterwards. That still has to play out.

[Sandman]

That death toll figure is not that bad for a city of Baghdad's size. Unless order is restored, however, it will climb and climb due to infectious disease taking hold.

As for the DU, the various teams searching for weapons of mass destruction should be given the task of cleaning it up, immediately, rather than chase non-existant threats.

[Az]

That death toll figure is not that bad for a city of Baghdad's size. Unless order is restored, however, it will climb and climb due to infectious disease taking hold.

Why the misconception that if facilities are not working, people will immediately die? humans are pretty reselient creatures, really.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
Let's not forget that most of us who opposed the war opposed it because of what would happen afterwards. That still has to play out.

well i dont know about most people - there were plenty of people saying that even if regime change were good, it wasnt worth the 500,000 or so civilian casualties that would result from war. I think that was a big part, explicitly or implicitly of most "cost benefit" calculations that were against the war.

After all, most of those who opposed the war said that they would support Saddams overthrow, if it was done by the Iraqi people and not by coalition forces. If it had been done by the Iraqi people most of the postwar problems would still exist.

That said, it is certainly to early to do a final "cost benefit" on the war - both the political situation in Iraq, and the longer term impact on international relations are still too unclear.

Nonetheless the claims of 500,000 to a million civilian casualties were wildly wrong. Even if the LA Times' s number is correct, and is not just copied from the Herrold website, and even if you double it for the rest of the country, that is still low compared to the annual murders committed by the regime.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
What did they base their count on? Saddam's claims? Are they counting total deaths or just military deaths or just civilian deaths?

They went to the various hospitals in Baghdad for a count. They are just counting civilian deaths.

Ming, actually, I'm rather glad that civilian deaths were comparatively low. Most progressives are (I count speak for liberals).

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Azazel

That death toll figure is not that bad for a city of Baghdad's size. Unless order is restored, however, it will climb and climb due to infectious disease taking hold.

Why the misconception that if facilities are not working, people will immediately die? humans are pretty reselient creatures, really.

there has already been a cholera outbreak in Basra, but so far no deaths. Cholera, fortunately is treatable, as is diarea. The reason for the death rate from those illnesses in the 3rd world is lack of resources for treatment. In Iraq the coalition is able and willing to provide the resources to keep the death rate low until they can full restore water and power.

[Ming]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Ming, actually, I'm rather glad that civilian deaths were comparatively low.

I know you are che... but I don't get that feeling that some of the other anti war people are.

[Az]

LotM, a spread of those deseases can be prevented by sanitation.

"Don't drink from the toilet, kids.".

I realize that utilities are in the crapper, but from some people here, you get the feeling that people are supposed to drop like flies in Iraq.