Yes, tens of thousands but highest estimates atributal to WAR are around 40-50 thousand. Actually, I do flinch everytime I hear it. I'm shocked and appalled by it. Daily in Iraq, sectarian violence and terrorism claims Iraqi lives and nothing seems to be able to abate it. Iraq is currently the most dangerous place on Earth. True, the US military does not account for Iraqi civilian deaths but there are several international organizations that do as well as Iraqi police/security forces. But none of them have it anywhere near 150,000. That why I'm wondering exactly what stats you are combining to arrive at such a number. And you can't blame the US and coalition forces for the sectarian violence. That's a standard Sunni/Shiite conflict that predates the invasion. Recall the Iran/Iraq war?
That was Muslim killing Muslim! The VAST majority of civilian deaths are Iraqi's killing each other. Didn't happen under Saddam (except for his boys killing whoever they wished), because he ruled with an iron fist. I am not a fan of this war, but probably 99% of the civilian deaths since the initial invasion have been Iraqi's at each other's throats. Don't blame the US for this.
If mahram's point is that American troops are INTENTIONALLY targeting Iraqi civilians, then I can assure him that casualties will not be in the hundreds of thousands but rather in the millions.
so your telling me if Russia invaded the united states in the 1960's to free the blacks from segragation. You would be happy.
Not the worst analogy but the oppressed Shia' are an 80% majority. But to use your analogy, let's say that happened. And let's say that roving gangs of Black Panthers and Klansmen were killing fellow American's by the thousands. In that scenario would you blame Russia for the bloodshed or blame the racist attitude of Americans?
Pabst you would blame the russians right. They were the ones who took over the country. They were responsible for law and order. If your going to take over a country, and be the law, then you should act like the law. and pabst, you have to remember another important thing, imagine then that russia dismantled the police force, military, and any institution connected to capitalist system. Just like the american military did in iraq. Dismantle the military, police force and any institution connected to the basth party. You would have complete chaos right. And if you think this is only a islamic thing. Just look what happened after Katrina. when you get ride of the police force, military, instutions, law, and even electricity. You get complete chaos. So to answer your question, its not a islamic thing, its a human thing. Its only when the american people are willing to send in the right amount of men power and money to secure the country, then iraq will start to stabilize. Pabst, do you think new orleans will still be in choas if Bush decided to send in 100 men to secure new orleans?
A few things... Says who? This sort of reasoning is faulty. An invading country isn't responsible for anything other than to secure their interests in invading and to minimize civilian harm as a direct result of military action. I don't know where you get this idea from. Or maybe there's some confusion given Bush's "policy" goals in Iraq currently versus his original reasoning. Even so, you state it as if this so called responsibility is codified in the Geneva Convention. Article 51 of the Geneva convention cannot be interpreted as law and order being the responsibility of the victorious adversary. Their only obligation is to make certain that adverse effects of direct hostilities are minimized where civilians are concerned. Sectarian violence, which for Iraq IS a "muslim thing" is outside the scope of the Geneva Convention and the obligations it carries. As is the terrorism inflicted by the insurgent Islamic forces. This amounts to deflection. While there are many errors in your analogy (not worth getting into here) there is one salient point. That being, it's a human thing that chaos has a high probablity of ensueing when law and order breaks down. But here's the thing; Enemy forces are doing everything they can to prevent the establishment of law and order. Why? Because in their view, the establishment of this law and order is in ideological conflict with the one they'd like. Namely, Sharia law. So in this instance, in Iraq, what is going on is uniquely Islamic. Islamic insurgents targeted Iraqi military and police recruits, politicians, day labourers. That's not mere chaos my friend. That's a guerilla war. Then sectarian violence ensued after a venerated mosque was destroyed. Again, not mere chaos but a civil war. Looked at properly, ordinary civilian Iraqis are facing a four front struggle in their daily lives. They have to deal with the reprecussions of: 1. The Insurgent's war against "infidels." 2. The sectarian war of the Sunni and Shiite sects. 3. The coalition's war against Insurgents and terrorists which has lead to many civil rights violations, civilian deaths as well as collateral damage. 4. The sharp increase in violent crime and due to the inability of coalition and Iraqi security forces to be everywhere at once. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending America's actions or presence there. But some of the logic I've read or heard concerning this conflict is silly. Such logic as: 1. If America didn't invade, the insurgents wouldn't be killing civilians. 2. If America didn't invade, there'd be no sectarian violence. No need, I hope, to break down why such logic is faulty.
UMMm didnt bush said he invaded iraq for democracy and to create regime change. So yeah the US is responsible
Hey. Its Friday!!! Time for mahram (the iranian pedophile) to gas up the old camel and take his underage girlfriend on a night of jihad. JIHAD!!! JIHAD!!!