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.

 

Iraq conflict has killed a MILLION people: Study

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Why do you think these Iraqis were helping us? Because they were glad that Saddam was gone.




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
No-it'd just be Saddam doing it if we weren't there. Once the insurgency is defeated, then Iraqis will have an opportunity they've never had before, to live in peace, without fear of being brutalized by a tryannical government.


So what if it was Saddam doing it? He is not us.

If we are to "police" the world leaders, why are we not in Somolia, China, Cuba, etc. Name anyother country that is going through genocide right now. Oh, I forgot, they don't have oil we can steel.




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Why do you think these Iraqis were helping us? Because they were glad that Saddam was gone.


Good for them.

Now think about why there is an insurgency. For the very exact opposite reason.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


My point was that if their loved one was an insurgent, they'd have a much higher likelihood of a violent death, than the average Iraqi.


They aren't insurgents,, THEY ARE IRAQI'S THAT WERE DEFENDING THERE COUNTRY FROM AN UNMITTIGATED ATTACK. Or do you actually believe we went there to "liberate" the Iraqi people?

Don't make the deaths of THERE soldiers in vain on some assinine technicality when you want your own dead HONORED.

The rest of your post is just splitting hairs reaching for more excuses why it might only be 700,000 then a Million. We went there because we wanted to take over then drop in a puppet Government call it a democracy and have a ominious presence in the middle east and THATS why we ain't leaving and won't be .

Iraq is GONE man. It isn't even the same anymore and if the surge is any excuse to say things are better less killings, it's because we damn near killed em all the rest went refugee.

(Snip)

- Con

[edit on 30-1-2008 by chissler]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


The US gets bashed when we don't send the military into areas that are of no strategic importance to us where there is a humanitarian crises going on. When we go somewhere that is of strategic interest where there's a humanitarian crises we get bashed too. The truth of the matter is that countries who don't want to spend money on their own military want us to go solve problems for them, but if it's something that is in our interest, they're against it.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology

Originally posted by BlueRaja



3 big problems these surveys can't reconcile are-
A- observed attacks creating mass casualties.
B- different areas of Iraq have had different levels of violence(or no violence since '03), so you can't extrapolate a figure for the entire country based upon what may be true in another.
C- was their family member an insurgent?


A doesn't make any difference, they are dead as a result of our un-mittigated pre-emptive attack, subsequent invasion and occupation of that country.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by Conspiriology]


That is if you actually swallowed whole the "results" of this so-called "poll", that can hardly be called "scientific". No the real truth is that you can easily find "data" to go along with any prejudicial opinion you might have.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


There's a lot more that wanted Saddam gone, than wanted him to stay. Does this minority opinion get weighted differently in your opinion, or do you respect the opinions of the greater percentile?



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 



So, you are agreeing with me that Iraq is of interest to us? What are we interested in?

Here's a hint.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 1/30/2008 by Griff]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Ignorance seems to be the human destroying virus of the 21st century



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

Why do you think these Iraqis were helping us? Because they were glad that Saddam was gone.


You believe that crap? Man what are you 18-19? They were helping us because WE PAID THEM TO AND THEY WERE HUNGRY AND THIRSTY AND WANTED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A SHOWER IN THE GREEN ZONE BECAUSE THEY HAD NO PLUMBING NO ELECTRIC NO CLEAN WATER AND IS WHY SO MANY CHILDREN DIED OF DISINTARY AND OTHER DISEASES. WE BLOCKADED ALL THE MEDICAL SUPPLIES FROM GETTING TO THOSE KIDS. AND THAT ISN'T AMERICA.

If it is,, then I don't recognise her anymore.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
There's a lot more that wanted Saddam gone, than wanted him to stay. Does this minority opinion get weighted differently in your opinion, or do you respect the opinions of the greater percentile?


OK. Saddam is gone. But the insurgents are growing. Why? Couldn't be because of our presence....no.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

There's a lot more that wanted Saddam gone, than wanted him to stay. Does this minority opinion get weighted differently in your opinion, or do you respect the opinions of the greater percentile?


Raja?? Where are you getting this baloney from?? Rush Limbaugh?

That was BEFORE they knew it was going to cost them 8 years of there lives and a few family members. That was before every other little kid you see there needs a prosthesis.

That was when we closed down abu ghraib and set up our own methods of torture rather then tearing that down and rebuilding a Mosque.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 



I am saying I don't believe those numbers are accurate. I think they are a gross exaggeration. Am I saying a lot of folks haven't suffered? No.
Whatever the real number of Iraqi casualties, 90% or more are as a result of insurgent/terror attacks, so trying to put the sole blame on the US is bogus too.


Yep, you are absolutely right. US only invaded Iraq and captured Saddam.
Oh wait...and then after they captured him the insurgent/terror attacks started to occur.
Put the blame on the country who led the invasion and destroyed Iraq.



As for progress- the Iraqis had free elections, and have a non-tyrannical government. Violence is down 60-90%, 15 or more of the 18 provinces are stable, etc... for starters.

As for your last question, I'm not sure how anything I said could have led you to that conclusion.


Do Iraqi opinions count? I hope so because I was born in Iraq and visited last year, but hey what do I know. So here let me show you some statistics.




Iraqi Civilians Killed, Estimated - A UN issued report dated Sept 20, 2006 stating that Iraqi civilian casualties have been significantly under-reported. Casualties are reported at 50,000 to over 100,000, but may be much higher. Some informed estimates place Iraqi civilian casualties at over 600,000.
SOURCE


This was at September 20, 2006.

MORE SOURCE

They also have not taken into account the people that have been kidnapped.
Now how was that a fault of the US? Well, this never happened when Saddam was in charge. Poor Kurdish people who died and Shiites who died because of Saddam, but now even more Kurds are dying because of Turkey, more Sunnis and Shiites are dying because of sectarian violence.

So please do not sit their and tell me that US is not responsible for this war! Because they invaded Iraq because Iraq had WMD's....no wait because they wanted democracy in that nation....no wait they wanted a government which would kneel down before the US president and kiss Bush's ass at will.

Your leaders have done that to Iran before by overthrowing their leader and now they did it to Iraq. What country is next? who knows stay tuned to the US invasion SAGA and find out.

So which provinces are stable? maybe I can go live there. The north where the Kurdish insurgents are fighting the Turkish army? The area where the Sunnis inhabit? or the area the Shiites are inhabiting?

I am a Christian and if I go there I will guarantee my . would be on a silver platter after one week. I should know that because my grandfather lives in Iraq and he said that he can't go out because people will kill him. My cousins had to wear a hijab so they do not get noticed as Christians.

Hmmmm... Yep seems like a stable place to live in. You want to join me?



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Care to provide some statistics, because I can and will:




BAGHDAD, Dec. 29 (UPI) -- About 90 percent of Iraqis feel the situation in the country was better before the U.S.-led invasion than it is today, according to a new ICRSS poll.

The findings emerged after house-to-house interviews conducted by the ICRSS during the third week of November. About 2,000 people from Baghdad (82 percent), Anbar and Najaf (9 percent each) were randomly asked to express their opinion. Twenty-four percent of the respondents were women.
Source



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by DimensionalDetective
 


People fighting against American troops, thats fine, we got almost 4,000 dead. The rest of the majority of Iraqis killed by insurgents either domestic or foreign blowing up in mosques, market places, etc. Thats something else. 1 big bomb blows up in a market over a hundred Iraqis killed in few seconds, many more died from their wounds. Happens constantly everyday. Not every Iraqi civilian is heavily protected as American troops are. Other thing is that this polling is just a guess and not accurate information like a census bureau.

Hence why many Sunnis are tired of these attacks by this so called Mujahadeenagainst civilians and collaborated with the U.S. military. Who would have thought of that?


And to blame on the U.S. on Sunnis versus Shiites is BS. Just blame on groups with greed for power. They all want power. We've seen in the past of ethnic groups killing each other. Thats why its called sectarian violence.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211


That is if you actually swallowed whole the "results" of this so-called "poll", that can hardly be called "scientific". No the real truth is that you can easily find "data" to go along with any prejudicial opinion you might have.


You are more then welcome to debunk the "poll"

You like to set any protocols for this debate, ie: what you consider credible sources of information on the number of dead on account of our invasion?



No the real truth is that you can easily find "data" to go along with any prejudicial opinion you might have.


If I thought that your life's savings amounted to more than the $42.50 that you have in your checking account, I would gladly bring this wager out of virtual reality and into the real world. How many of my experts'/military sworn testimonies concerning my "opininion" would you deem necessary to convince you of this truth? 5? 20? 100?




- Con


[edit on 30-1-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Griff
 


Can you show evidence that the insurgency in Iraq is growing? Violence is at the lowest point since '03, following the surge. With violence down 70 or more percent, I just don't think the facts corroborate that claim.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


If you consider the UN and World Health Organization estimates credible, then their figures are in the 100-250k range. Documented fatalities are under 100k.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


The folks that worked with us were in many cases college educated, and from urban backgrounds. They weren't some destitute orphan, looking for a meal. They risked their lives daily, and for considerably less money than would entice someone, if their sole desire was money. There were many others working in all manner of capacities, because they were genuinely happy that we were there. So in answer to your question- no I didn't get my info from Rush Limbaugh.

[edit on 30-1-2008 by BlueRaja]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Iraq Body Count seems to be a good source of information.


Iraq Body Count is an ongoing human security project which maintains and updates the world’s largest public database of violent civilian deaths during and since the 2003 invasion. The count encompasses non-combatants killed by military or paramilitary action and the breakdown in civil security following the invasion.

Data is drawn from cross-checked media reports, hospital, morgue, NGO and official figures to produce a credible record of known deaths and incidents. (more in About IBC)


On the home page, a link says:

Year Four: Simply the worst

Summary:


On every available indicator the year just ended (March 2006 – March 2007) has been by far the worst year for violence against civilians in Iraq since the invasion:

* almost half (44%) of all violent civilian deaths after the initial invasion phase occurred in the just-ended fourth year of the conflict
* mortar attacks that kill civilians have quadrupled in the last year (from 73 to 289)
* massive bomb blasts that kill more than 50 people have nearly doubled in the last year (from 9 to 17)
* fatal suicide bombs, car bombs, and roadside bombing attacks have doubled in the last year (from 712 to 1476)
* one in 160 of Baghdad’s 6.5 million population has been violently killed since the beginning of the war, representing 64% of deaths recorded so far


40,625 is 1/160 of 6.5 million. If that is 64%, then 100% = 63,477. I'm assuming that it means that 64% of TOTAL casualties are Iraqi civilians, according to their figures and research.



ALL HUMAN LIFE IS PRECIOUS.

NONE of this is justified!



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join