34 Dead as Baghdad Bombers Hit Red Cross, Police

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

According to the same poll, 50% of the Iraqis have lost a relative / friend / neighbour under Saddam's reign. Since Saddam's reign lasted 20+ years, whereas Gulf War 2 lasted one month, this war strikes me as being quite bloody.

Of course, no journalist thought of mentioning the thousands (tens of thousands?) Iraqi soldiers who died during the war, leaving orphans and widows. Nobody thought worth mentioning that a great many people will now be crippled for the rest of their lives because of the war.

I think the figures of the poll (the only way to approach Iraqi casualties, as there has been no body count) are striking. 50% for more than 20 years of a reign of terror. And 30% for a mere month of a "clean war". Yeah

Several hundred thousand during the reign of terror. Entire Iraqi army at time of GW2 less than 200,000. So somethings wrong with your numbers.

Comparing murders of civilians, (for the most part) against deaths of soldiers in combat.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

According to the same poll, 50% of the Iraqis have lost a relative / friend / neighbour under Saddam's reign. Since Saddam's reign lasted 20+ years, whereas Gulf War 2 lasted one month, this war strikes me as being quite bloody.

Of course, no journalist thought of mentioning the thousands (tens of thousands?) Iraqi soldiers who died during the war, leaving orphans and widows. Nobody thought worth mentioning that a great many people will now be crippled for the rest of their lives because of the war.

I think the figures of the poll (the only way to approach Iraqi casualties, as there has been no body count) are striking. 50% for more than 20 years of a reign of terror. And 30% for a mere month of a "clean war". Yeah

AFP

'An estimated 13,000 Iraqis, including as many as 4,300 non-combatants, were killed during the major combat phase of the war in Iraq, a research group found in a study.


The Project on Defense Alternatives said its estimate was based on a review of US combat data, battlefield press reports, and Iraqi hospital surveys. The study covered the period from March 19 to the end of April.


The Pentagon has refrained from making estimates of Iraqi dead in either the 1991 Gulf War or the latest conflict.

The study, authored by Carl Coneta, found that deaths of Iraqi civilians who did not take up arms in the fighting was as high or higher than in the 1991 Gulf War despite advances in precision weaponry.


"On the Iraqi side, a review and analysis of the available evidence shows that approximately 11,000 to 15,000 Iraqis, combatants and non-combatants, were killed in the course of major combat operations," the study said. '

[Spiffor]

Thanks for the figures LOTM
The poll I cited was the one The Diplomat mentioned in his thread "the truth about Iraq"

[Ned]

Sharpton, who appeared at the anti-war march and who supports and immediate pull-out, appeared last night on the O'Reilly show. When the discussion got to Iraq, Sharpton was on message - talking about the wrongness of the War and that we should not support a failed policy but should end it and withdraw. He said, just turn Iraq over to the UN.

Then O'Reilly asked about Saddam.

Sharpton essentially gave him a blank stare. After a while, he began to repeat his message without answering the question.

[Q Classic]

did you expect anything substantial from sharpton?

you can only squeeze so much sherry from a rock, you know.

[Jac de Molay]

Obviously, Sharpton and that evil, Serbian leprechaun Kuchinich don't represent the majority of Democratic sentiment regarding Iraq.

Hopefully, a Clark/Edwards ticket will rise above this morass.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
Obviously, Sharpton and that evil, Serbian leprechaun Kuchinich don't represent the majority of Democratic sentiment regarding Iraq.

Hopefully, a Clark/Edwards ticket will rise above this morass.

I doubt it, at least for a while any ways. All the dems running for president right now, all they do is attack President Bush mainly with the Iraq situation in an effort to appeal to their base of support, the bush haters in the Dem party. The one who never wanted to go into Iraq in the first place.

The only person I have heard so far say what he would do in Iraq is Sharpton, but his solution would fail in so many ways and we would end up with a bigger mess then we do now.

[Ned]

The true test of leadership is expressing a vision and concrete steps to achieve ones goals.

None of the Democrat candidates have expressed a vision on Iraq except for perhaps Sharpton and Kucinich. We have no idea as to what Dean or Clark or any of the other want to achieve with Iraq or what they would do with Iraq if they were president.

[dannubis]

and may the local population be entitled to its own goals ?

it strikes me a little odd that oil is flowing from the oilfields of iraq but many of the people of bagdad still have no running water...

so what goals are you talking about ?

[Garth Vader]

Originally posted by Ned
The true test of leadership is expressing a vision and concrete steps to achieve ones goals.

None of the Democrat candidates have expressed a vision on Iraq except for perhaps Sharpton and Kucinich. We have no idea as to what Dean or Clark or any of the other want to achieve with Iraq or what they would do with Iraq if they were president.

Neither has Bush and co, they had visions all right but they seemed drug induced. I didn't see concrete steps before the war, and sure haven't after either.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by dannubis
and may the local population be entitled to its own goals ?

it strikes me a little odd that oil is flowing from the oilfields of iraq but many of the people of bagdad still have no running water...

so what goals are you talking about ?

Iraq is still only pumping less than 40% of the oil they produced pre-war. Im sure theyre well over that on water. Are youre suggesting that they should not prduce any oil till water is at 100%? Are you aware that they need oil to produce electricity, and electricity to pump and purify water?

[Giancarlo]

Any figures or casualities for Iraqi Soldiers/Civilians are not credible and not backed up. I think the casuality rate for civilians was much lower, IMHO.

[Ned]

Originally posted by dannubis
and may the local population be entitled to its own goals ?

it strikes me a little odd that oil is flowing from the oilfields of iraq but many of the people of bagdad still have no running water...

so what goals are you talking about ?

Several months ago, Bush said our goal was to defeat Saddam, install Democracy, and then leave. Today, I see no clearly defined goal. Bush seems to have become a victim of mission creep. Instead of talking about withdrawing as soon as the new Iraqi government conducts elections, all Bush now talks about is that Iraq has become the frontline in the war on terror. What this implies to me is that we will not withdraw even after a new Iraqi government is elected.

What I would still like to hear is his plan for withdrawing United States troops from Iraq. Honestly this would involve creating sufficient security forces in Iraq so they can carry on the battle against the Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda without our help. What I am looking for is a new "Vietnamization" policy.

At least when Nixon ran against the Johnson/Humphrey régime in '68, he had a plan to end the war even know he was not more specific. I think that the Democrats would be entitled to criticize Bush on the basis that Bush does not have an exit strategy if they had one of their own. Simply turning the matter over to the UN if the UN itself has no exit strategy would potentially allow the return of Saddam Hussein. When has the UN ever conducted a successful war? Can you imagine an armed force led by a French general?

Turning Iraq over to the UN while an active guerrilla war is underway and before a new Iraq government has an army of its own is a formula for disaster.

[HershOstropoler]

"Several months ago, Bush said our goal was to defeat Saddam, install Democracy, and then leave."

Well you didn't really believe that rubbish, did yu?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned
The true test of leadership is expressing a vision and concrete steps to achieve ones goals.

None of the Democrat candidates have expressed a vision on Iraq except for perhaps Sharpton and Kucinich. We have no idea as to what Dean or Clark or any of the other want to achieve with Iraq or what they would do with Iraq if they were president.

Given that the situation they would inherit in January 2005 is a bit different than the one that pertains now, anyone with an announced set of goals now, for what they would do starting in '05, is a fool.

Also, there's a little fundamental sticking point (and I'm not 100% sure you're trolling this time, Ned ), and that is the moral/pragmatic issues involved in having "goals" for a foreign country we invaded and conquered for no particular good reason other than it's ruler was an ******* and it sits on a bunch of oil.

Colonialism is just soooooo... like, last century.