Iraqi civilian deaths 'avoidable'

to put the tread 'no respect' by moose in a new perspective i have to agree with Human Rights Watch..
news.bbc.co.uk...

Its offcourse also a way to demoralise the people in this case iraq..but the strong will probably survive..like i also just read that the New Iraq army hit by resignations, news.bbc.co.uk...
And ofcourse the usa tries to blame it on the money....hihi, ignorant ???

I find it quite "ironic" how people today cry out on humanity issues, such as "civilian deaths are avoidable"....and yet do not hear the same echo that history has often spoken.

Throughout all wars and conflicts, civilain innocents die; simple fact. Were and is most of them "avoidable"...perhaps. Do I agree with the tragedy that befalls civilain innocents....no. Mr. Marcus fails to point out that with the amount of fighting that has taken place in Iraq...with the incrediable amount of bombing that has taken place in Iraq, civilian deaths are exceptionally low. Human Rights Organization are biased to the extent that they fail to put things into historical context. I also find it highly ironic that this article address's mere "Hundreds of civilian deaths" out of the context that there are some 7-9000 total civilain deaths, thus far.

There is no such thing as "no civilain casualties" in war or in conflicts, the term "avoidable" in such a scenerio as war or conflict is like mixing oil and water.........


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 12-12-2003 by Seekerof]

Seeker: Um, yeah. Except that many of the civilian deaths in this war are not just under-reported, but usually not reported at all.

And a lot of these deaths are also due to clusterbombs. Guess what, every SINGLE one of those deaths due to clusterbombs could have been avoided in one simple way. DON'T USE CLUSTERBOMBS.

"It strongly criticises the use of cluster munitions in populated areas. It estimates that some 13,000 cluster munitions were fired, containing nearly two million sub-munitions, that could well have killed or wounded in excess of 1,000 people. "

news.bbc.co.uk...

There's one thousand that were killed because of US use of clusterbombs in civilian populated areas.

And I don't care what kind of precision guidance systems you use, if you drop a 3000kg bomb on a single point, the resulting explosion is OBVIOUSLY going to damage much around it. So now think Baghdad, a city of 4 million people, being carpetbombed for 3 days straight.

A good way to avoid killing civilians is to not invade their country on false pretenses.


jakomo

"Don't use clusterbombs"............right......
Thats like saying dont use guns, bombs, grenades, flamethrowers, machine guns, missiles, etc......
Right........

I hear you....human rights groups have been around long before you and I. They go back to ancient times and their message was the same as it is today....
"civilain casulaties are 'avoidable'".....


regards
seekerof

[Edited on 12-12-2003 by Seekerof]

its indeed kind of hard and the only way to avoid casulties is by not fighting a war..so there we are again, back to square one..

Seeker: "Thats like saying dont use guns, bombs, grenades, flamethrowers, machine guns, missiles, etc"

Go to the link I provided, or just go google "clusterbombs used war". You DON'T drop these on CIVILIAN TARGETS, why is that so difficult to understand. It's frickin murder.

A clusterbomb opens and deploys hundreds of little bomblets. Up to 20% of the bomblets DON'T explode and they just lay around on the ground like land mines.

Guess what, knowing that that's what they do and then using them anyway in a CITY is NOT protecting civilians whatsoever, it shows a total disregard for their safety.

There's even a Convention against their use (including the use of landmines, which were also used in iraq), but the US didn't sign it. Iraq neither. Nice thing to have in common.

But I suppose I should be throwing all common sense and morality to the wind, because I'm sure the Pentagon or the DoD wouldn't lie to me.

ha

j

Clusterbombs...You know....if it isn't "clusterbombs or DU rounds, or the US, in general Jak...that the Human Rights Organizations are crying and whining about weren't always their focus, I'd have more respect for what they say.....
but I have come to realize that all Human Rights Organizations are biased, blind, and simply plain politically motivated....
If these organization had spent half their energies, that they spend crying and whining about the US, and had directed it towards those 300,000+ to 1,000,000+ "civilian innocents" that Saddam nullified...well, that would have truly been "avoidable," wouldn't it?

"Go to the link I provided, or just go google "clusterbombs used war". You DON'T drop these on CIVILIAN TARGETS, why is that so difficult to understand. It's frickin murder."

Murder? Don't talk to me of murder when you continually and steadily fail to mention the astrocities that Saddam committed....!
Wanna cry for some 'souls' cry for those 300,000+ to 1 million+.......
Pretty much all those Human RIghts Organaization are good for is crying and pointing out 'crimes', etc.....personally....if you can't do something to stop it....cease with the crying. What do you call it? "Boo freakin' hoo"?


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Clusterbombs...You know....if it isn't "clusterbombs or DU rounds, or the US, in general Jak...that the Human Rights Organizations are crying and whining about weren't always their focus, I'd have more respect for what they say.....
but I have come to realize that all Human Rights Organizations are biased, blind, and simply plain politically motivated....
If these organization had spent half their energies, that they spend crying and whining about the US, and had directed it towards those 300,000+ to 1,000,000+ "civilian innocents" that Saddam nullified...well, that would have truly been "avoidable," wouldn't it?

"Go to the link I provided, or just go google "clusterbombs used war". You DON'T drop these on CIVILIAN TARGETS, why is that so difficult to understand. It's frickin murder."

Murder? Don't talk to me of murder when you continually and steadily fail to mention the astrocities that Saddam committed....!
Wanna cry for some 'souls' cry for those 300,000+ to 1 million+.......
Pretty much all those Human RIghts Organaization are good for is crying and pointing out 'crimes', etc.....personally....if you can't do something to stop it....cease with the crying. What do you call it? "Boo freakin' hoo"?

regards
seekerof

Hi seek, is it your idea that the rule, an eye for an eye fits here..or better in general ?
pz joz

Everytime this discusion about civilian casualties, there is always somebody that tries to say "Well, what about what Sadaam did". Let me tell you something, THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!!! What kind of mental process is occurring in your brain?? Is this really how you people feel, that because sombody else did it , its ok for the US to do it. GEEZ, this world is in trouble, with individuals such as yourself there is zero hope for humanity.

Seeker: What about the thousands that Saddam killed?

Hey, he did that over a THIRTY YEAR PERIOD and the U.S. didn't do jack SQUAT, either to stop him or to protect the people he slaughtered. In fact, they supported him militarily and economically.

That's a tired excuse, and it's totally irrelevant to the situation..

Because Saddam killed some of his own people, those people's friends and neighbors deserve to be clusterbombed into freedom? Weeeeeak.


j

Yeah Jak....
I also noticed that none of those so-called Human Rights Oraganization didn't do squat either...........


regards
seekerof

Originally posted by Jakomo
Seeker: What about the thousands that Saddam killed?

Hey, he did that over a THIRTY YEAR PERIOD and the U.S. didn't do jack SQUAT, either to stop him or to protect the people he slaughtered. In fact, they supported him militarily and economically.

That's a tired excuse, and it's totally irrelevant to the situation..

Because Saddam killed some of his own people, those people's friends and neighbors deserve to be clusterbombed into freedom? Weeeeeak.


j

As Seeker said the HRO's didn't complain about Saddam either whilst he was merrily slaughtering his own people. That's STILL an average of more than 33,000 people PER YEAR over a period of 30 years.

Don't tell me it's a moot arguement, either. THAT's BS.

As I've said in another post, civilian casualties happen. Especially when the opposing force TELLS you they are going to use human shield around their country as a deterrent. Saddam didn't give a rats ass about their lives, but he knew the HRO's would be ALL OVER the US for hitting those targets anyway.

The U.S. did not go out of their way to target civilians. They weren't purposefully attacked. The U.S. government knows it's going to be in hot water for the war anyway, why on Earth do you think they would want to add more controversy by targeting non-military targets.

A weeeakkk arguement would be saying that there wouldn't have been any civilian deaths if the "stupid U.S." would have just stopped using cluster munitions. Civilian casualties are a fact of life in war. I hate it, you hate...no one likes it...but it has happened and will happen in every conflict from the beginning of time through the end as long as there is war....regardless of the weapons used.

Murder is bad. Unless, of course, we're the ones doing it.

Murder is bad period Bangin.
War is an inevitiable characteristic, tendency and part of human nature.
Innocents dying in war or any conflict scenrio is inevitable.
Twisting the word and term 'murder', in a war or conflict scenerio, is also inevitably going to happen.
Murder implies malicious intent and I don't believe that the US has intentionally and with premeditation sought after killing "innocent civilians".



regards
seekerof

murder, yeah thats killin with malicious intent ..dont know if the states does that, i hope not but one cant be sure i guess. What i read about these so-called clusterbombs is that the only use is to destroy as many people as possible, preferred on the battlefield..thats what they are designed for, so if u drop em in a suburban area...u intend to kill the people there, who in that case are civillians. Then we call it murder...
Maybe war is not as inevitable as you make it sound seek, ofcourse there have been a lott of wars before and many will follow..if people dont change. But to make war for reasons not really worth it is badddd.
All murder is wrong, true...as is all killing.


[Edited on 17-12-2003 by jozuph]

Cluster bombs, as I have posted before, cover a radius equivalent to 18 football fields.
In the Afgani Mountains, that's one thing. In an urban theater, it's inexcusable.
A non-combatant death toll that is rising closer by the day to 40%, is also inexcusable.
We have no moral preach point with those sort of numbers. We are merely prosecuting a war against a population.
Death toll numbers for US forces and Iraqis are fudged more than Enrons books....another moral failing.

Exactly what are the intentions of those that drop bombs and pull triggers aimed at people? In this case, to target the bad guys and eliminate them. The rest are simply expendable.

Originally posted by Seekerof


Throughout all wars and conflicts, civilain innocents die; simple fact.
[Edited on 12-12-2003 by Seekerof]

ive been trying to tell people the exact same thing!