It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iraqis Endure Worse Conditions Than Under Saddam, UN Survey Finds

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Came across yet even more figures. Compared with the statistics I mentioned in my last two posts, I think the record, as capable of being assessed, shows that the U.S. and its allies have killed over three times as many innocents in Iraq as have the insurgents.

No source has yet released authoritative statistics on the total number of Iraqi civilians killed during OIF. However, in a discussion with a Reuters reporter, interim Iraq Human Rights Minister Bakhtiar Amen estimated that the insurgency has killed 6,000 Iraqi civilians in the past two years and has wounded 16,000 more. These figures do not include civilian deaths due to military actions taken by American forces.

Source: CRS Report: US Military and Iraqi Casualty Statistics April 26th, 2005.

-koji K

[edit on 20-5-2005 by koji_K]




posted on May, 20 2005 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Thats a joke right? Satire? It MUST be a joke. You cannot be serious. How many dozens of Iraqi's die each day by Isurgent and terrorist bombings? Every single day?

Koji, come back to reality.


I see you harping on about this repeatedly, yet you havn't put up any figures or sources to back up your point. None. Just the same line again and again. Got anything at all about how many civilians are killed each day by suicide bombers etc. compared to those killed by coalition airstrikes etc.? Anything?

Or should we just take your word for it? (rhetorical)

By the way, I abhor the killing done on both sides. But it just seems a bit strange that you ask a person who at least puts forward data and sources to back up his assertions to "come back to reality". Saying something again and again will not make it true.


[edit on 20-5-2005 by cargo]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 02:08 PM
link   
If people are gonna keep complaining, maybe we should just lift the embargos, put Saddam back in charge, and re-open the "Rape Rooms." And all you left wing, liberal, radical, tree-hugging hippies can move to Iraq since it was such a paradise under Saddam's control! I'll even fork some $$$ over for the plane tickets and I'm sure a lot of other people would as well.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Cargo and Koji:

Kojis is reporting numbers from the entire war. Bottom line fact, no matter what numbers he has, is TODAY in Iraq, insurgents are activly targeting and slaughtering cililians by the dozens daily. Fact. You two can calculate the total figures all you want, but on a daily basis in Iraq right now, the insurgents are killing many, many times the amount of civilians the cpoalition is. And if you think otherwise you are living in a fantasy land.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
If people are gonna keep complaining, maybe we should just lift the embargos, put Saddam back in charge, and re-open the "Rape Rooms." And all you left wing, liberal, radical, tree-hugging hippies can move to Iraq since it was such a paradise under Saddam's control! I'll even fork some $$$ over for the plane tickets and I'm sure a lot of other people would as well.


Several posts in this thread, including the title post, have provided credible sources for the proposition that the Iraqi people are currently worse off than now than they were under Saddam, whether your yardstick is quality of life, or security from fundamentalists and insurgents. This is not of course to say Saddam's regime was a paradise, as you so correctly point out. But it was better for the average person, it would seem. You can't wave an American flag above a pile of fecal matter and somehow fool everyone into believing it's not a pile of fecal matter. Or can you?


And your solution would be to withdraw before we've managed to bring Iraq out of this hell and finish what we've started, and throw anyone who dare points out the facts somewhere you can't hear them, eh? Good job.


-koji K.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K

Originally posted by Rasputin13
If people are gonna keep complaining, maybe we should just lift the embargos, put Saddam back in charge, and re-open the "Rape Rooms." And all you left wing, liberal, radical, tree-hugging hippies can move to Iraq since it was such a paradise under Saddam's control! I'll even fork some $$$ over for the plane tickets and I'm sure a lot of other people would as well.


Several posts in this thread, including the title post, have provided credible sources for the proposition that the Iraqi people are currently worse off than now than they were under Saddam, whether your yardstick is quality of life, or security from fundamentalists and insurgents. This is not of course to say Saddam's regime was a paradise, as you so correctly point out. But it was better for the average person, it would seem. You can't wave an American flag above a pile of fecal matter and somehow fool everyone into believing it's not a pile of fecal matter. Or can you?


And your solution would be to withdraw before we've managed to bring Iraq out of this hell and finish what we've started, and throw anyone who dare points out the facts somewhere you can't hear them, eh? Good job.


-koji K.


withdraw so soon? i prefer not to. the reason is that if Zarqawi decides to use Iraq as the staging base for Jihad around the world and if there is another 9/11 attacks style again America will have to come back to the problem like Afghanistan. never let terrorists run around freely and safely. its better to help the Iraqi police and army get better training until they are good at taking on the terrorists. until then we stay.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Koji:

How many of those coalition killed civilians does your report say were killed while being used as human shields by the insurgents? How many of those were killed while Saddam housed them at weapons plants and depots? How many were killed when isurgents fired upon coalition forces from the windows of the civilians homes?



Its sickening to me that you guys justify these insurgents killing civilians in line to get food and water and jobs as an acceptable tactic. What kind of animals are you?



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Koji:

How many of those coalition killed civilians does your report say were killed while being used as human shields by the insurgents? How many of those were killed while Saddam housed them at weapons plants and depots? How many were killed when isurgents fired upon coalition forces from the windows of the civilians homes?



I don't know skippy, but then apparently, neither do you. I am basing my statements on published facts. If you are going to debate me, I'm sure there are ways of doing so, but not by extrapolation from whatever disturbing imagery you may have seen on the news today. Find me some figures. Our government uses them, the Iraqi government uses them, NGO's use them, and I'm sure the insurgents use them. Why shouldn't I?


Its sickening to me that you guys justify these insurgents killing civilians in line to get food and water and jobs as an acceptable tactic. What kind of animals are you?


When did I, or anyone else in this thread, say this was justifiable? When? You are unabashedly putting words in people's mouths, and I resent that. If I gave a rats ass, I would report you to the mods.

It seems like you have a fantasy image of liberals as siding with the insurgents and terrorists. Pointing out facts that do not portray the US in a good light does not equal siding with terrorists, whatever you or W. might say or think.

-koji K.

[edit on 20-5-2005 by koji_K]



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Agreed skippy, it seems the US is to blame for all the problems in iraq. I think this is political tactic to try to make the administration look really bad.
I think if the tables were turned and a dem was in iraq we wouldnt be doing a better job. This is a tactic the liberals use, the right typically will not resort to spreading anti-american propaganda. I wish blame was placed where it is due, sadly. If we left iraq tomorrow, do you think these insurgents most of whom are foreigners are just going to pack up and go home? I think the left has difficulty seeing the bigger picture, they also dont seem to want to get their hands dirty either. If half of the people that ran these liberal newspapers and newsoutlets would sign up, we wouldnt be falling short on recruitment quotas.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
If people are gonna keep complaining, maybe we should just lift the embargos, put Saddam back in charge, and re-open the "Rape Rooms." And all you left wing, liberal, radical, tree-hugging hippies can move to Iraq since it was such a paradise under Saddam's control! I'll even fork some $$$ over for the plane tickets and I'm sure a lot of other people would as well.

I suggest that you, a right-wing-radical-trigger-happy republican go to downtown Iraq and see what Hell is going on - and then talk about how great and glorious this war is, that your goverment is calling liberation.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Here we sit argueing over casualty figures, do the dead care?

This thread was supposed to highlight the conditions the iraqi's live in, not to compare casualty figures and argue over who was right or wrong in the war.

There are men and women fighting, first aiding, healing, dieing and living under these conditions yet we compare casualty figures?

I think we should be ashamed at what this thread has turned into....
I hope your happy....the people in iraq , not just the local population but the troops and forigners too are there makeing a diffrence while we discuss casualty figures and who was right or wrong in a war.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
I think everyone is missing the point to all of this. For example, if China said that the US was planning to destroy China at some future date, decided to launch a pre-emptive strike on the US and bring over every soldier possible to occupy the US, would you as American citizens not take up arms and do anything possible to get rid of the invading horde.(Assuming of course that the US was not equal in military terms to CHina). The US has not fought a war in the last 60 years where they were equalled militarily and therefore are unprepared for the tactics that will be employed against them. The US was expecting a typical war planes vs. planes, tanks vs. tanks, etc, etc,. But when you have an army that has been destroyed by sanctions from a previous failed attempt at regime change and a growing desire to rid your country of an occupying force of infidels(from Iraqis point of view), would you not use the only tactics available to you.

Terrorism is about public opinion. Kill enough US soldiers and the US citizens will start to question war(just like in Vietnam) and it's validity. Kill Iraqis that are helping occupying force and send a message to the Iraqi people that support for the invaders will not be tolerated.

Things were safer under the rule of Saddam. I'm not supporting him and IMHO I think he was an evil man with big ambitions, but what dictator isn't? The US opened a can of worms and now has no idea how to get out of it.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
Things were safer under the rule of Saddam. I'm not supporting him and IMHO I think he was an evil man with big ambitions, but what dictator isn't? The US opened a can of worms and now has no idea how to get out of it.


Safer? tell that to the Kurds, i dink they prefer the way they live right now.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
And so the mudslinging will continue, my call for peace un headed.



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
Things were safer under the rule of Saddam. I'm not supporting him and IMHO I think he was an evil man with big ambitions, but what dictator isn't? The US opened a can of worms and now has no idea how to get out of it.


Safer? tell that to the Kurds, i dink they prefer the way they live right now.


That was also inflamed by George H. W. Bush during the GW1, when he told the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and the US would support them. They did and you didn't and they faced the consequences of their actions. But it's sectarian violence(an internal matter best left up to that country). If this is the sort of thing the US wants to stop and spread "Freedom and Democracy"(choking on my own vomit due to the hypocracy" then why aren't you guys in various countries in Africa or the Indonesian countries that have continued sectarian violence or genocides for that matter.

I believe the answer is simple. OIL a nasty 3 letter word



posted on May, 20 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by DEEZNUTZ
Things were safer under the rule of Saddam. I'm not supporting him and IMHO I think he was an evil man with big ambitions, but what dictator isn't? The US opened a can of worms and now has no idea how to get out of it.


Safer? tell that to the Kurds, i dink they prefer the way they live right now.


That was also inflamed by George H. W. Bush during the GW1, when he told the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and the US would support them. They did and you didn't and they faced the consequences of their actions. But it's sectarian violence(an internal matter best left up to that country). If this is the sort of thing the US wants to stop and spread "Freedom and Democracy"(choking on my own vomit due to the hypocracy" then why aren't you guys in various countries in Africa or the Indonesian countries that have continued sectarian violence or genocides for that matter.

I believe the answer is simple. OIL a nasty 3 letter word



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Its sickening to me that you guys justify these insurgents killing civilians in line to get food and water and jobs as an acceptable tactic. What kind of animals are you?


I justified nothing. You put words in my mouth, a common tactic. But one which always fails. A very, very foolish thing to do. Your emotive spin will never work and you know it. Everytime you attempt this tactic, it makes you look like an A-Grade BS artist. I simply asked that you put up some figures that backed your assertions, but you just skirted around it. I take your word for nothing, skippy. Who are you?

I am quite willing to accept what you state to be true, if only you can back it up. How simple is that?



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
If people are gonna keep complaining, maybe we should just lift the embargos, put Saddam back in charge, and re-open the "Rape Rooms."


Maybe you should shave that beard, shower, or better yet, we can put you in the cell with Sadaam and you two can become real good, bearded friends.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:50 AM
link   
The biggest and most important difference between Iraq under Saddam and Iraq now, is that Iraqi's now have the power to take command of their nation and to run their own government. It remains to be seen what they will do with their new freedom, but only an insentient being would suggest that abject slavery is better than freedom, even under the worst of conditons.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:55 AM
link   
I think this study meant to address overall well-being rather than murder/death rates. But take into account bombings and such and maybe the murder/death rates are comparable to Saddam-era?

[edit on 21-5-2005 by Jamuhn]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join