Bush's Civilian Body Count Tops 10,000

[Chris Alger]

Not that many care, neither the press nor the government bothering to tabulate or dislcose these numbers. But it's a conservative estimate based on published reports of more than 3,000 civilians killed in Afghanistan (http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm) (as of March 2002) and the Iraq body Count tabulation of between 7352 and 9152 in Iraq (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/). I couldn't find good data anywhere on Afghani and Iraqi military losses, almost certain to number many thousand conscripts.

It's worth noting as senior members of the House Intelligence Committee conclude, ever so politely, that the alleged Iraq threat was based on "insufficient specific information." Doubtless the same could be said for Afghanistan, where the Bush administration explicitly ordered the Taliban "government" to perform what the comparatively gargantuan U.S. military has so far been unable to do, capture bin Laden.

Bush's tally has to exceed those killed during the last several years by bin Laden, all Palestinian terrorists and the governments of Iraq, Iran and North Korea combined.

Now for the hard part: how do we get away with it? What if half of what we've read about the incandescent hatred and detrmination for revenge in the Muslim world is true? How many generations before we can stop looking over our shoulder?

[Wake up CALL]

Now for the hard part: how do we get away with it? Allah is on our side. What if half of what we've read about the incandescent hatred and detrmination for revenge in the Muslim world is true? Then we continue to make it more unsuitable to attack us compared to simply hating us. How many generations before we can stop looking over our shoulder? That is the reason to continue attacking them. Eventually even a bull stops butting his head into a wall.

[BruceZ]

That's rougly a quarter of the traffic fatalities in the US over the past year. How do we get away with driving cars? It's completely unnecessary.

[MMMMMM]

What the heck are you griping about this number for?

Saddam's body count topped 500,000 and may have been much closer to 1 million. How many more would Saddam have had killed, raped and tortured if left in power? And since you would probablty deny that figure, here's the first page I pulled up on it off Human Rights Watch. If you want more detailed figures of the deaths Saddam is thought responsible for I am sure you can find them.

(excerpt)“By conservative estimates, at least 290,000 people are missing in Iraq, and the answer to their whereabouts likely lies in these graves,” said Bouckaert. “The U.S.-led coalition must take the lead, not only in securing gravesites, but quickly communicating its commitment to exhume and identify the remains.”(excerpt)

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/05/iraq051303.htm

And let's not forget Saddam's campaign against the Iraqi "Swamp Arabs", the Kurds, or other his human rights abuses.

You've actually just pointed up how "cheap" the 10K is by comparison, Chris.

Or, maybe in your world the 500K+ doesn't count for some reason, nor do the undefinable huge numbers Saddam would have killed in coming years.

Go figure.

You're so intent on the U.S. "devil", you ignore the fact that the Iraqis had a much worse devil to deal with for over 30 years. One which would have plagued them for years to come if it were not for the U.S.--and those unfortunate 10K.

[Chris Alger]

I don't deny those figures. Saddam's expertise at liquidating communists and Islamicists is probably what attracted people like Bush Sr. and Rumsfeld to him in the first place. (From the HRW report: "Many of the victims in the Muhammad Sakran grave were civilians arrested and executed in the early 1980s on suspicion of membership in the outlawed Iraqi Communist Party and the Islamic Da’wa Party"). He was, after all, only doing what we were helping our Central American allies do at the same time.

"How many more would Saddam have had killed, raped and tortured if left in power?"

Good question. About how many victims have there been since the Anfal campaign (that we had no problem with at the time) ended around 1988?

Moreoever, on what basis are you assuming that Bush's body count has anything to do with lives saved? I know you've asserted this many times, but just once I'd like to see it spelled out: an argument that nothing the U.S. and the UN could have done short of war could have prevented Saddam from repeating the atrocities that, in the American context, you constantly define as being "in the past" or part of the "Cold War" and therefore not something that should guide future predictions of U.S. conduct?

[Chris Alger]

Yeah, I remember hearing statistics like that a lot when the towers were collapsing and people were predicing thousands of fatalities. You heard it all the time from politicians and commentators: it sure looks bad, but remember that it's only a fraction of deaths caused by highways, smoking, obestity, etc.

[Chris Alger]

"we [should] continue to make it more unsuitable to attack us ... [and] continue attacking them. Eventually even a bull stops butting his head into a wall."

An original strategy but you should probably keep it secret lest the other side think of doing the same.

[BruceZ]

The people on the highway choose to take that risk. The people in the towers did not choose to take a risk. The people in Iraq should have been happy to get rid of their cruel dictator for a risk that was smaller than that of driving on the highway.

[brad]

'happy to get rid of their cruel dictator for a risk that was smaller than that of driving on the highway. '

since their population is much smaller 10k is maybe 150k proportional so not true even if they have similiar auto death rates heh heh blah blah

p.s. i have unsucessfully argued for doing away with costly homicide investigations since the number of people killed is far less than auto accidents. (and its not a true choice to live in modern socieity pretty much compelled to drive)

[MMMMMM]

OK you raise some reasonable questions here. I don't know how many Saddam killed since 1988. More than 10K seems to me a pretty reasonable guess though considering his pervasive institutionalization of murders, rapes and tortures.

Besides the question of raw numbers, there's also the matter of just what price is it worth to be be able to live without fear the state police are going to drag you and your wife and kids out of bed in the middle of the night to some unimaginably horrible fate, never to be seen again. In other words getting rid of state terrorist machinery can be worth even more than just the number of lives that will be eventually be saved in aggregate.

Maybe it's not a provable thing: that war was the only way to prevent Saddam from continuing his state murder machine, etc. But it seems a pretty reasonable hypothesis to me, and besides, how much longer should the Iraqi people have been forced to wait and endure for relief that never seemed to arrive?

[BruceZ]

Actually, if you consider there are 14.85 deaths per 100,000 licensed drivers, that's 10,000 deaths for 67 million drivers. The population of Iraq is 25 million, so it would be like each person driving for less than 3 years. Of course that assumes each person has an equal risk. The people near the strategic targets would have to drive longer.

[brad]

assuming alchohol and part it plays in accidents it may have to be adjusted to 100 years at least.

so i think its accurate to say, how can they be upset at being instantly exposed to more than a lifetime of risk? heh ...

anyways who cares pnac document calls for race specific bioweapons, lets kill those ragheads! maybe it'll work on those jews too! and everybody knows those chinese (and theyre all chinese, its just a trick all that korean japanes thing) are tricky, lets wipe them out too! (as suggested in pnac).

p.s. sorry if i forgot blacks or mecicans or anything i dont want to be racist or anything

[BruceZ]

Look again, I revised my estimate down to under 3 years. I didn't take into account alcohol, that might increase it to 6 years. Alcohol accounts for less than half of traffic fatalities. 100 years, come on. Do they smoke?

[Ray Zee]

m, i dont buy the reason for going to war to help the poor iraq people from their dictator. why should any of us die for people that wouldnt die for us. especially a people of a religon that doesnt like us to begin with. simple.

but to remove him so as he couldnt be a threat if he was one, then maybe that is justification.

but the real reason is that our president has told us sooner or later they will find the wmd. and that they are there, as he has proof but cant show us. soory i had to put that in.

but if it truly does reduce or stop us from being targeted by terrorists then it is justified.

[BruceZ]

That wasn't the reason, it's just a favorable tradeoff so they quit bellyachin' about the 10K.

[brad]

no i mean

i could be way off,

but

its my understanding they dont drink alchohol over there, so their accident rate should be correspondingly lower.

etc.

[BruceZ]

Actually it doesn't matter, you can compare it to driving on our highways. Surely the average person would gladly drive on our highways for a few years to get rid of the evil dictator. After they've received the proper instruction I mean.

[brad]

oops yeah i see you got what i meant. no fair changing your post like that /images/graemlins/smile.gif

but i thought alchohol was way more than just half of deaths.

if its 75% of deaths then your 15 years goes to a lot or something i dont know. heh

3 to 10 i guess. but also they dont drive as much so i doubled too or something.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't deny those figures.
.
.
.
but just once I'd like to see it spelled out: an argument that nothing the U.S. and the UN could have done short of war could have prevented Saddam from repeating the atrocities

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris, Saddam and his party needed to be removed from power not becuase he might repeat those atrocities, but becuase they committed them in the first place. History will rightly look back on this age with disdain because the western world allowed tyrants like Kim Jong il and Saddam to commit grievous crimes against humanity. I'm all for giving the peaceful solution a try, but we had already spent 12 years trying to get this regime out of power with out going to war. Personally, I think we should have done this 11 years ago.

Stu

[BruceZ]

It was 40% in 1995 I just saw. It went down last year. I think 6 years generous. It's actually less if they drive on our roads because other drivers will still drink.

[brad]

how can u compare it to driving on our highways? besides i would think 40% means dui or dwi or whatever.

i would think like 80% at least there was some alchohol involved.

point is that the population of iraq does not consume alchohol afaik. (otoh iraq was pretty westernized but still)

[Stu Pidasso]

Post deleted by Stu Pidasso

[BruceZ]

It would be like when they come over and drive a cab for a little while.

[brad]

im gonna claim credit for one confirmed and 3 or 4 probable.

[brad]

ok then adjust it down to 6 mnoths ive seen those cabbies drive

[BruceZ]

So there you have it. The war in Iraq makes as much sense as driving to work. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[brad]

see bruce you dont none a that high falutin logic in this here forum /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Chris Alger]

"there's also the matter of just what price is it worth to be be able to live without fear the state police are going to drag you and your wife and kids out of bed in the middle of the night to some unimaginably horrible fate, never to be seen again. In other words getting rid of state terrorist machinery can be worth even more than just the number of lives that will be eventually be saved in aggregate."

Well put. I agree with this and would go further: the value of avoiding these things, and of removing this kind of regime is worth more than the sheer number of lives saved, and that certain freedoms are worth human sacrfice, up to a point including the sacrifice of innocents.

That hardly settles anything, however, because the destruction of Saddam's regime and its evils would have been accomplished if Iran or Russia had "liberated" Iraq. We might have a low opinion of how these countries run themselves, but they certainly would have improved the lot of Saddam's victims.

Aside from the problem of precendent if we come to tolerates this kind of "liberation plus strategic advancement," we would raise serious questions about wether even Iraq justified such actions.

The test should be: <ul type="square"> given the inherent risks of war both in immediate tragedy and long-term repurcussions ("blowback");
given the alternatives (arms and financial sactions, human rights monitors, arms inspectors, etc.);
given the certainly that the Iraqi leadership isn't any more self-perpetuating than other tyrannies, that all things eventually die a natural death; and
given the precedents for popular movement to overthrow tyrannies (e.g., E. Europe); [/list] is Iraq probably going to be so much better off that unilateral conquest is the only reasonable choice? These are the things we'd force the Russians and Iranians to prove. Yet because it's the U.S. we persist in assuming rosy answers without looking at our actual history of doing such things.

When the U.S. is the occupier, the assumption seems to be that the U.S. will try to "create democracy," "foster free institutions" and so forth. This are not merely difficult tasks, as we constantly read, they're actually vague and complicated concepts.

We also tend to rely only on post-WWII as our only example of what happens when countries come to be dominated by the U.S. But Iraq is infinitely powerless compared to Germany and Japan, socially and economically. It has only two things that matter to American decision-makers: oil and access to more oil. The better models for predicting what will probably happen to Iraq are countries like Iran and Iraq in the 1970's and the U.S. heritage of indifference to human rights concerns once our strategic and economic goals are met. If that's correct, then the people killed in this war were sacrificed for no greater good than those in most other wars of foreign aggression and terror, and Bush is no better than Tojo or bin Laden.

[Chris Alger]

Interesting circle. The US supports Saddam while he murders hundreds of thousands. Later, the US no longer support Saddam and Saddam no longer murders hundreds of thousands. The US is now justified in replacing Saddam because the US is not likely to support someone as bad as Saddam.

As for 12 years that the US spent trying to "get this remige out of pwoer," that's a tough proposition too. My understanding is that the US strengthened his regime internally in order to isolate it internationally, and never lifted a finger to assist his Iraqi victims.

[brad]

'and never lifted a finger to assist his ... victims. '

not true U S shipped lots 2 israel

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The US supports Saddam while he murders hundreds of thousands

[/ QUOTE ]

American blood is now being shed for that crime.

[ QUOTE ]
Later, the US no longer support Saddam and Saddam no longer murders hundreds of thousands.

[/ QUOTE ]

The no fly zones were able to deminish Saddams capacity to commit atrocities.

[ QUOTE ]
The US is now justified in replacing Saddam because the US is not likely to support someone as bad as Saddam.


[/ QUOTE ]

Justified? Obligated is a better word.

Stu

[andyfox]

"Eventually even a bull stops butting his head into a wall."

Can we assume, then, that the Israelis and Palestinians are not bulls? It's been quite a few generations that they've had to keep looking over their shoulders.

[MMMMMM]

One problem in Israel/Palestine is that the two sides have reached a stalemate of sorts. If they can't work out a peace (and it looks like they probably can't) the lousy situation won't be over unless one side is able and willing to use much more force than has previously been used.

If all this had taken place in olden times one side would probably have already demolished or driven the other side out completely, which would have been a more bloodthirsty solution, but probably also a much less festering one.

I'm not saying that is the best answer today: just observing. Also noting the fact that maybe long stalemates can sometimes be worse than brutal short solutions. All in all it's not a pleasant commentary on human nature.

[MMMMMM]

"m, i dont buy the reason for going to war to help the poor iraq people from their dictator. why should any of us die for people that wouldnt die for us. especially a people of a religon that doesnt like us to begin with. simple."

Nor do I think it was a primary reason that we went to war. However I do think it is a major reason that the war was a good thing. So even though the moral argument wasn't high on our list of priorities, it is still high on the list of good reasons.


"but to remove him so as he couldnt be a threat if he was one, then maybe that is justification.

but the real reason is that our president has told us sooner or later they will find the wmd. and that they are there, as he has proof but cant show us. soory i had to put that in."

I think it takes more of a leap to imagine that Saddam actually changed his path and destroyed them all than it does to imagine that he became extremely adept at breaking them down and hiding the parts, or that he transferred them to Syria. Yes it's strange that they haven't been found but remember it is like looking for a few purposely hidden needles among a great many haystacks. Iraq is as big as California and has more desolate areas; how fast could we find them in all of California if they were well-hidden there.

"but if it truly does reduce or stop us from being targeted by terrorists then it is justified."

I think it's a step in that direction. Stopping the state sponsors of terror is important to stopping terrorists overall. While other regional governments are doing more to sponsor terror than Iraq did, Iraq is a great central location from which to operate. I hope we don't leave until there has been regime change in Syria, Iran and possibly Saudi Arabia, and the region is stabilized. Probably too much too hope for though.

Also, al-Qaeda is now pouring jihadists into Iraq to fight us there--hopefully like moths to the flame. And hopefully the more they fight us there the less they fight us here.

[Gamblor]

[ACPlayer]

Give it up MMM.

Nobody believes that you really care about people in a far off land to spend 150billion plus American lives, except those who have run out of other excuses to go to war and are desperately trying to defend a failed policy.

You continue to use this excuse to hide your fears (we will be fried) which is why you support this exercise in futility. It makes you feel better to think that way so go ahead and do so. But let me tell you a little secret: You are no safer now than before this little war. Sleep well.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
"Eventually even a bull stops butting his head into a wall."

Can we assume, then, that the Israelis and Palestinians are not bulls? It's been quite a few generations that they've had to keep looking over their shoulders.


[/ QUOTE ]

Mr. Fox, the difference in your analogy is that Israel is kept from eliminating their foes by political and economic pressure. There is noone who is able to put similar pressure on the mighty USA so we will crush the bulls horns in spite of the left wing objections.

[MMMMMM]

An incredibly off-the-mark post, ACPlayer; you've managed to hit a new level or something.

I do care about people in far-off lands, and I think our investment in Iraq--in time, money and lives--will eventually be shown to be more than worth it, both for us and for the Iraqi people.

Failed policy? Isn't it way too early for judgements like that?

Concern over terrorist attack is quite rational, as is planning what to do about it and how to prevent the next attack. Also, remaining a sitting duck and doing nothing, or playing pure defense, aren't exactly a winning strategies, IMO. I think Mason might be inclined to refer to such strategies as "self-weighting," or something similar. Of course there is more to fighting terror than simply going after terrorists and their supporters: among other things there is trying to make peace in the region, which may be why Bush has been trying to get the "Road Map" implemented.

We are probably somewhat safer now than before but that doesn't mean we are close to safe.

[Gamblor]

Now for the hard part: how do we get away with it? What if half of what we've read about the incandescent hatred and detrmination for revenge in the Muslim world is true? How many generations before we can stop looking over our shoulder?

Perhaps a better question is: How many generations would we have been looking over our shoulders without this war?

I don't have an answer, but I'm pretty sure there are enough people that believe the correct answer is "indefinitely".

[MMMMMM]

Even if we never had never meddled in Middle Eastern affairs, many Muslims would still hate us for our secularism and Westernizing influences on their culture.

Islam is akin to Medieval Christianity in this way, before the Enlightenment and Age of Reason took place. Islam still places Faith above Reason, while in the Western world Faith has gradually taken a back seat to Reason due to the ideological revolution which took place over 200 years or so, starting with Thomas Aquinas. That is also why we have made so much more progress than they have: our embrace of Reason led to great scientific discoveries and developments.

Under Medievalism, Reason is to be shunned (or worse) if it conflicts with Faith. Those were the days when Christians burned witches and so forth. Islam has simply never emerged, ideologically speaking, from Medievalism, except for a few brave Muslim (or ex-Muslim) souls who today dare to speak out, usually writing under pseudonyms lest they be killed. Other moderate Muslims are usually drowned out by the loud chorus and violence of the Medievalists, and so it continues. There is very much an ideological war going on between the forces of Modernism and Reason vs. the forces of Medievalism and Faith. This war is as real and important as the war between terrorists and society--maybe even more so.

[Chris Alger]

"How many generations would we have been looking over our shoulders without this war?"

In the absence of evidence that Iraq facilitated 9/11 or other terror attacks against the US, the answer is obvious: we wouldn't care in the slightest, and shouldn't any more than we did before 9/11. Sometime ago the Gallup organization published its polling history for US support for the overthrow of Saddam. There was a huge gap between 1992 and 2001 because the question was so unimportant Gallup didn't even bother to ask anyone.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
There was a huge gap between 1992 and 2001 because the question was so unimportant Gallup didn't even bother to ask anyone.


[/ QUOTE ]

It appears that Gallup was mistaken in the correct level of interest.

[Cyrus]

I will not comment on the we-know-what's-good-for-you tone of the reponse. But I will comment on this typical mistake in probabilistiic thinking:

"The people on the highway choose to take that risk. The people in the towers did not choose to take a risk."

In fact, both groups of people choose to take the respective risk! The mistake lies in ignoring the fact that people never actually want to be killed! They do not want to become, as the lingo has it, "a statistic". Because in fields such as highway deaths, the deaths are accidental, whereas in cases such as terrorist attacks the deaths have a premeditator behind them, we mistakenly assume that people can choose probabilities in the former case but not in the latter.

Here are the correct assumptions:

People on highway, by geting on the highway, choose to accept the probability of getting killed on the highway: 0.0000016% (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/Crash/crashstatistics/)
People on tall buildings in Manhattan, by geting up on those buildings, choose to accept the probability of getting killed by an airplane crashing into the building: X%.

--Cyrus

PS : I would speculate that 0.0000016% &gt; X%. I would also speculate that X, although remaining extremely small, grew somewhat after the WTC 1993 attack, but this would be nitpicking.

PPS : The discussion, of course, as always, begs the question whether the people are correctly informed about the respective risks inherent in various endeavors in their lives. I submit that people are rarely, if ever, well-informed about everyday risks (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1563431149/qid=1064902995/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-0399102-1304726?v=glance&amp;s=books) or even basic probability concepts. I have been in casinos long enough and have seen enough hard eight bets in my time to make me a biased observer.

[Gamblor]

In the absence of evidence that Iraq facilitated 9/11 or other terror attacks against the US, the answer is obvious: we wouldn't care in the slightest, and shouldn't any more than we did before 9/11.

LOL Chris

Hussein is one man in a sea of America's enemies. They ALL hate Americans, and any one of them could have done it, it's just that Bin Laden had the nerve to go through with it.

If Hussein was less concerned with butchering Kurds and suppressing any Iraqis not in his tribe, and more intent on fighting the enemies outside his borders, the US would have been engage in war long before March 2003. Or was Kuwait a chance occurence?

Whether or not Kuwait is deserving of US help is irrelevant - Hussein is a human being. Human beings exhibit personalities that remain consistent over time. If he felt like conquering Kuwait to hoard its oil, then given enough time and resources he would do anything he can to help his kind (secular and/or religious, Arabs and/or Muslims) take power. They already have the UN, now they need something productive.

They're all in it together to take us out, but the West just hasn't heard about it until recently.