Collateral Murder

[Kathryn]

'Civilians' replace with 'non-combatants' or 'unarmed' as you see fit.
　
Do you really think that Saddam killed more 'non-combatants' than we have?
Or that he tortured more than we have?
Seems to me that Saddam was our poster boy, best friend and ally right up until he stopped warring against Iran, then he began to fall out of favour fairly quickly.

I absolutely believe that radical Islamic extremists and corrupt leaders in regions dominated by radical Islam are responsible for more civilian deaths than coalition forces.

 

[TJ73]

Don't get me wrong - civilian casualties are always, always a tragedy and should be avoided if at all possible. It just seems to me that there's a difference between civilians being caught in the crossfire, and civilians being TARGETED. Not to the person getting killed, of course, but in the hearts of those holding the weapon.

So look at the people getting killed. They for sure believe and the data supports that we too are targeting them. Are sophisticated talk and stylish names for battels and war machines and tactics, I'm sorry we are no better. And I don't get the impression they are fighting with the spoils of war in mind.

 

[Kathryn]

Human rights in Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Number of Victims

According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[9] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[10] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[11] to over 600,000,[12] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[13] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[14] to 200,000.[12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[15]

Now - that's just in Iraq, under Hussein's rule. This doesn't count the thousands and thousands of innocent civilians killed in terrorist attacks by radical extremists over the past decade in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

 

[dmgdnooc]

From 1978 - 1991 he had our support to fall back on in the things that he did.
The US provided the technology for his biological warfare programme, Germany helped him out with poisonous gasses, France (was it France or Russia?) laid the foundations of his nuclear programme.
Don't we share in the responsibility?
　
A quarter million, or more, children died because of our sanctions; I would suppose that many of the frail and elderly would likewise have died because of the sanctions.
Doesn't that count for something against us?
　
We are in the position of the kettle, Saddam the pot.
　
Why do you suppose that we (our leaders) supported the murderous scumbag for so long if it wasn't that he thinks like we (our leaders) do and we (our leaders) think like him and both can work together with ease.
　
Do you recognise that most of those 'corrupt leaders in regions dominated by radical Islam' are our friends? We helped them get where they are and work to ensure that they stay there.
　
The West has a nice face and several others not often shown in the West.

 

[dallas1125]

From 1978 - 1991 he had our support to fall back on in the things that he did.
The US provided the technology for his biological warfare programme, Germany helped him out with poisonous gasses, France (was it France or Russia?) laid the foundations of his nuclear programme.
Don't we share in the responsibility?
　
A quarter million, or more, children died because of our sanctions; I would suppose that many of the frail and elderly would likewise have died because of the sanctions.
Doesn't that count for something against us?
　
We are in the position of the kettle, Saddam the pot.
　
Why do you suppose that we (our leaders) supported the murderous scumbag for so long if it wasn't that he thinks like we (our leaders) do and we (our leaders) think like him and both can work together with ease.
　
Do you recognise that most of those 'corrupt leaders in regions dominated by radical Islam' are our friends? We helped them get where they are and work to ensure that they stay there.
　
The West has a nice face and several others not often shown in the West.

I really wish it was as black and white as you show it as.

 

[dallas1125]

The United States supported Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. This support included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.
Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives, although the public and news media paid little attention. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became", and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."

The Hussein-U.S. alliance came to an end at 2 a.m. August 2, 1990 when 100,000 Iraqi troops, backed by 300 tanks, invaded Kuwait. America's one-time ally had become its most bitter enemy.

Sometimes you have to deal with people like Saddam in order to keep the balance.

 

[TJ73]

From 1978 - 1991 he had our support to fall back on in the things that he did.
The US provided the technology for his biological warfare programme, Germany helped him out with poisonous gasses, France (was it France or Russia?) laid the foundations of his nuclear programme.
Don't we share in the responsibility?
　
A quarter million, or more, children died because of our sanctions; I would suppose that many of the frail and elderly would likewise have died because of the sanctions.
Doesn't that count for something against us?
　
We are in the position of the kettle, Saddam the pot.
　
Why do you suppose that we (our leaders) supported the murderous scumbag for so long if it wasn't that he thinks like we (our leaders) do and we (our leaders) think like him and both can work together with ease.
　
Do you recognise that most of those 'corrupt leaders in regions dominated by radical Islam' are our friends? We helped them get where they are and work to ensure that they stay there.
　
The West has a nice face and several others not often shown in the West.

And so I have also read the Iraqi civilian casualties have been estimated any where from 100,000 ( in like a5 year span) to 1,000,000 in a 7 year span. How long did it take Saddam?
I am no historian, I am not the most well read but i pay attention and I can not understand who this war is supposed to help anyone other than those with some financial interests.

 

[dmgdnooc]

I don't understand how you can see my posts as black and white.
Black and black, maybe; but that's not my intent.
　
I believe that we share in the responsibility. 'Share' is not monochromatic.
I believe that the West has many faces. 'Many faces' is not monchromatic.
　
You'll have to be more specific.
　
And does your idea of 'warfare' sit comfortably with the non-combatant death toll?

 

[dmgdnooc]

I'm in much the same position as you TJ73.

 

[Kathryn]

Look, I'm not trying to evade the issues, but if you'll read back over this thread from the start, you will see that I've been interacting on it and we've covered these issues over and over and over again, so I am not going to get back into all of it.

Here's a recap of my position:

1. I am skeptical of all politicians and their motives - ours included.

2. That being said, we do need more stability and better infrastructure in the Middle East.

3. The US has invested billions and billions into many of the countries in question - you can call it blood for oil or national interests or whatever you want, but the bottom line is that private industries based in the West have invested heavily in that region, WITH the support and encouragement of not only local and regional politicians, but also private individuals and companies. It is their right to protect those interests.

4. Radical Islam destabilizes countries that it dominates. Note that I said RADICAL Islam. I did not say MODERATE Islam. I have no problem with moderate Muslims and in fact support and defend them on a regular basis.

5. War is hell. Terrible things happen, and often to innocent men, women and children. I hate it. But a full scale war is nearly always multi faceted, complex, and can be spun forty different ways by forty different people with forty different points of view.

6. I do not believe that most soldiers are bloodthirsty, raping and pillaging deviants. The vast majority, in any army, want a positive outcome and want to be able to go to sleep at night feeling like they made a positive difference in their world that day - not a negative one.

7. We'll never know all the reasons for the turmoil and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - because there are too many players involved. Each man and woman fights or fights to survive for their own reasons, some of which we as individuals may agree with and some which we may abhor. I could find common ground with a Taliban insurgent in a cave in Afghanistan, I am sure. He'd have some valid points. But so does my daughter, the SGT in the Air Force, with one deployment under her belt and another one coming down the pipeline.

 

[TJ73]

Look, I'm not trying to evade the issues, but if you'll read back over this thread from the start, you will see that I've been interacting on it and we've covered these issues over and over and over again, so I am not going to get back into all of it.

Here's a recap of my position:

1. I am skeptical of all politicians and their motives - ours included.

2. That being said, we do need more stability and better infrastructure in the Middle East.

3. The US has invested billions and billions into many of the countries in question - you can call it blood for oil or national interests or whatever you want, but the bottom line is that private industries based in the West have invested heavily in that region, WITH the support and encouragement of not only local and regional politicians, but also private individuals and companies. It is their right to protect those interests.

4. Radical Islam destabilizes countries that it dominates. Note that I said RADICAL Islam. I did not say MODERATE Islam. I have no problem with moderate Muslims and in fact support and defend them on a regular basis.

5. War is hell. Terrible things happen, and often to innocent men, women and children. I hate it. But a full scale war is nearly always multi faceted, complex, and can be spun forty different ways by forty different people with forty different points of view.

6. I do not believe that most soldiers are bloodthirsty, raping and pillaging deviants. The vast majority, in any army, want a positive outcome and want to be able to go to sleep at night feeling like they made a positive difference in their world that day - not a negative one.

7. We'll never know all the reasons for the turmoil and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - because there are too many players involved. Each man and woman fights or fights to survive for their own reasons, some of which we as individuals may agree with and some which we may abhor. I could find common ground with a Taliban insurgent in a cave in Afghanistan, I am sure. He'd have some valid points. But so does my daughter, the SGT in the Air Force, with one deployment under her belt and another one coming down the pipeline.

I can, for the most part get on board with all you said except #3.Because people matter more than money. And I know how naive that sounds in our world were financial interests trump everything else, but I really feel that way. And I don't just preach it I live it. I have seen what a lovely person you are kathryn so don't think this exchange changes any of that,K?:rainbow1:

 

[Kathryn]

I can, for the most part get on board with all you said except #3.Because people matter more than money. And I know how naive that sounds in our world were financial interests trump everything else, but I really feel that way. And I don't just preach it I live it. I have seen what a lovely person you are kathryn so don't think this exchange changes any of that,K?:rainbow1:

Oh, I'm not offended, and thank you for your honesty and frankness. I always like that.

I know I sound coldblooded about the monetary investment, but think of it this way:

Let's take Chevron for example. When Chevron begins exploration and development in a country, they invest millions into infrastructure that betters the people of an area - roads, schools, power plants, sewers, training programs, you name it. They do it for a variety of reasons, some selfish, but also because the more stable a country is, the better it is for all parties involved, including the local people.

That's one of the types of "interests" and "investments" I'm talking about.

 

[dmgdnooc]

I have a sense of you from your posts and do not imagine you evading anything that I could say!
　
1. I'm skeptical of all politicians and their motives - especially our own, coz I've had more experience of them.
　
2. I think that the Middle East has the right to determine for itself its own needs and priorities.
　
3. Private industries in the West have invested billions in the region, have recieved their initial investments back and in addition have reaped enormous profits from those investments. Private industries invested money got their money back and more, they did not buy the region as a personal fiefdom to hold in perpetuity. Businesses have a right to protect their interests, but not with public blood and treasure. I object at public resources being used to shore up private interests; if businesses can't make a profit without the blood of Australian troops and Australian tax dollars then they should be allowed to fold.
　
4. I note that Saudi Arabia may be the most radical of Islamic nations and also one of the most stable. What countries do you have in mind as being both radical and unstable?
　
5. War is blood and faeces, bowels and limbs strewn together on a battle field set to the screams of the wounded and the moans of the dying; it is no place for children and it should not pursue children (or other non-combatants) down their own street and into their own homes. I think that going to war requires more of a reason than 'how many sixpences have they got?' and especially when they have very much fewer sixpences than we have. (nickels)
　
6. I am a former Postmaster of a garrison town and have had extensive and long term dealings with Military personnel. I can honestly say that not one of the soldiers that I have encountered gave me any indication that he/she was a bloodthirsty, raping and pillaging deviant. They are, in the main and as far as I can tell, honest, hard-working, diligent servants of the people who willingly undertake dangerous and difficult tasks out of a sense of duty.
　
7. I think that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over sixpences, resources and the profits therefrom. The US Military establishment admits that its own ill-considerd strategies are largely responsible for the insurgency in Iraq. I have sympathy for, even empathy with, those who would take up arms against a brutal invader (and Shock and Awe was brutal) I wonder at the Military planners who were unable to predict the reaction, I can only suppose that they judged the Iraqis by their own standards, how they would behave in such circumstances.
　
So, we agree on somethings and can disagree on others.
　
May your daughter be safe and kept from harm's way; may she return to you soon, straight and true, as she left.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Don't get me wrong - civilian casualties are always, always a tragedy and should be avoided if at all possible. It just seems to me that there's a difference between civilians being caught in the crossfire, and civilians being TARGETED. Not to the person getting killed, of course, but in the hearts of those holding the weapon.

I agree civilian casualties should be avoided if at all possible, one "possible" way to avoid this is by not shooting unarmed people wearing civilian clothes. Won't you concede this much? Is that not reasonable?

 

[dallas1125]

I agree civilian casualties should be avoided if at all possible, one "possible" way to avoid this is by not shooting unarmed people wearing civilian clothes. Won't you concede this much? Is that not reasonable?

I like it but terrorists wear civillian clothes...

 

[MSI64]

A terrorist/Insurgent becomes a civilian as soon as he lays down his/her weapon which insidently what they do. Fire off a few hundred rounds at troops then when the troops get too close throw down your weapon and wander off???? When an insurgent throws a grenade as soon as that grenade leaves his hand he becomes a non combatant??
Now try and work under those conditions?
Civilain casualties are recorded as just that I dont think it tells who actually killed them, so the stats your quoting are for civilians killed both by insurgents and coalition forces as well.

 

[dallas1125]

A terrorist/Insurgent becomes a civilian as soon as he lays down his/her weapon which insidently what they do. Fire off a few hundred rounds at troops then when the troops get too close throw down your weapon and wander off???? When an insurgent throws a grenade as soon as that grenade leaves his hand he becomes a non combatant??
Now try and work under those conditions?
Civilain casualties are recorded as just that I dont think it tells who actually killed them, so the stats your quoting are for civilians killed both by insurgents and coalition forces as well.

A great point.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I like it but terrorists wear civillian clothes...

But the only reason we care about terrorists is to protect civilians. Protecting civilians is the goal, killing terrorists is just sometimes a means to achieve that goal.

If all we care about is killing terrorists, then we should destroy the Earth with our nuclear arsenal, since that's the only way to be SURE we kill every last terrorist.
There is something wrong with that course of action, and I think you know what it is. It defeats the purpose.

And if shooting unarmed people in civilian clothes is okay, then the Nazis were perfectly justified in their mass killings of French villagers, those were not crimes against humanity because the partisans wore civilian clothes and lived among the villagers.

 

[dallas1125]

But the only reason we care about terrorists is to protect civilians. Protecting civilians is the goal, killing terrorists is just sometimes a means to achieve that goal.

If all we care about is killing terrorists, then we should destroy the Earth with our nuclear arsenal, since that's the only way to be SURE we kill every last terrorist.

There is something wrong with that course of action, and I think you know what it is.

And if shooting unarmed people in civilian clothes is okay, then the Nazis were perfectly justified in their mass killings of French villagers, those were not crimes against humanity because the partisans wore civilian clothes and lived among the villagers.

Nazis purposely targeted civllians, coalition forces dont.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Nazis purposely targeted civllians, coalition forces dont.

I'm not comparing coalition forces to Nazis. I'm objecting to your argument, which is "terrorists wear civilian clothes". That's not a valid reason for shooting unarmed people wearing civilian clothes. It's unbelievable to me that anyone could object to such a mild, reasonable, rational idea, like we shouldn't shoot unarmed people wearing civilian clothes. Really? Can we really not agree on this basic principle?