PDA

View Full Version : Risk of death for Iraqi civillians HIGHER than before.....



PeedeeShaolin
28th October 04, 05:02 PM
Poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" have led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq, scientists say.
A study published by the Lancet claims the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.

It condemns the coalition's planning on public health as "grievously in error".

But the Iraqis are MUCH better off now than before correct? Isn't that what we're made to believe?

These people were better off with Hussein in power than bombs and blood raining down on their streets everyday.


Scientists from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the US city of Baltimore gathered data on births and deaths since January 2002 from 33 clusters of 30 households each across Iraq.

They found the relative risk of death was one-and-a-half times higher for Iraqi civilians after the 2003 invasion than in the preceding 15 months.

That figure jumps to two-and-a-half times higher if data from Falluja - the scene of repeated heavy fighting - is included.

Before the invasion, most people died as a result of heart attack, stroke and chronic illness, the report says, whereas after the invasion, "violence was the primary cause of death."


Women and children are reportedly the biggest casualties of air strikes

Violent deaths were mainly attributed to coalition forces - and most individuals reportedly killed were women and children.

Yes yes, thank GOD for the coalition that REMOVED that LUNATIC Hussein and replaced him with civil war and massive civillian death! Thats what everyone WANTED! FREEDOM is the ONLY CHOICE! These people will bend over and TAKE their democracy dammit!


Lancet editor Richard Horton said: "With the admitted benefit of hindsight and from a purely public health perspective, it is clear that whatever planning did take place was grievously in error."

He went on: "Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths not fewer. This political and military failure continues to cause scores of casualties among non-combatants."

He urges the coalition forces to rethink their strategy to "prevent further unnecessary human casualties".

"For the sake of a country in crisis and for a people under daily threat of violence, the evidence we publish today must change heads as well as pierce hearts," he said.

So we've proven that with all our weapons the only thing we're able to do is drag an old man out of a hole and spark up a civil war in his country leading to more detahs than before. Good job going on there and making things worse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

PeedeeShaolin
28th October 04, 05:03 PM
Osama WHO?

wakinonioi
29th October 04, 10:01 AM
These people were better off with Hussein in power than bombs and blood raining down on their streets everyday.

url]


Bullshit. :angry6:

garbanzo
29th October 04, 10:57 AM
How can we know either way?

"Better off" is a value judgement and should be determined by the Iraqi people.

A public opnion poll would be interesting. The only problem is that you can't conduct one in the middle of a war.

SCO
29th October 04, 11:18 AM
Who cares anyway what the Iraqis think?

But on a sidenote:

Doug Bereuter:
"Was the pre-emptive military strike to remove Saddam in America's best interest? That is a question that receives a sharply divided response in our country with the trend being against the pre-emptive military action we launched. I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action, especially without a broad and engaged international coalition. The cost in casualties is already large and growing, and the immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible. Our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened. From the beginning of the conflict it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force. Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."

"Doug Bereuter will step down from his 1st Congressional District seat effective Sept. 1 after 26 years in the in the House of Representatives."

source:
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2004/08/19/letters/doc412532f09fbbe438621096.txt

Judah Maccabee
29th October 04, 11:22 AM
Holy fuck, PD, you're so predictable.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/102904J.html


There is a report out today in The Lancet (discussed here in the Guardian) which attempts to measure the number of deaths from coalition actions in Iraq. Here is how it is being reported:



"About 100,000 Iraqi civilians -- half of them women and children -- have died in Iraq since the invasion, mostly as a result of airstrikes by coalition forces, according to the first reliable study of the death toll from Iraqi and US public health experts. "




With a 95% confidence level a relative risk ratio of anything less than three is regarded as statistically insignificant. Just to clarify that, by "insignificant" no one is stating that it is not important to those people who undoubtedly have been killed during the War. What is being said is that we don't have enough information to be able to say anything meaningful about it. "Statistically insignificant" means "we don't know".



In effect, what has been found in this paper is nothing. Nada. Zip.



Except of course that one of the two leading medical journals in the world has published a piece of shoddy research four days before the US elections with the obvious motive of influencing them. Sad, that, and my apologies as an Englishman that it should be one of my countrymen who did such a thing.

DJeter1234
29th October 04, 03:34 PM
um, doesn't the paper say the risk is now x58 what it was? 58>>3. Anyway, what years are they using as their data to judge statistical significance? If it goes back intot he first Gulf war 3x makes sense for 96% confidence, otherwise I'm somewhat skeptical.

But this really doesn't take into account what the Iraqis can now do. I bet that if Iraqi's under Saddam spoke against him they would have a much much higher risk of death by violence.

wakinonioi
29th October 04, 03:38 PM
I bet that if Iraqi's under Saddam spoke against him they would have a much much higher risk of death by violence.


Yeah, like 100%

Scrapper
29th October 04, 09:10 PM
People die. People will continue to die. People do not treat death quantitatively except when comparing it to more death, or when they want to make a point. One dead person sucks. Does 100000 suck more? That depends on whether or not you knew any of them.

My wife died last year. She was 21. I would kill 100000 people to bring her back, but I reserve the right to pick the 100000.

Iraq will grow, and prosper, and become part of a world community as a democratic and economic power. But in the meantime, while the problems of Hussein are replaced with the problems of an emerging government, people will die. Every single one of those deaths will hurt someone, but they cannot be avoided, only minimized.

To say that Iraqi peole were better off under Saddam indicates a one-dimensional point of view on the situation. There will be always be those who fear growth or change because it involves risk, and danger, and in the case of Iraq...death. Grow up. Hussein and his administration killed millions and would continue to kill for years to come. Iraq's civil upheaval will settle itself in time.

And as for all the other places that have asshole murdering dictators in charge...maybe the French would like to make a stand for the good of the world. Why does always seem that weak always scoff at the strong, unless they need or want something from them. The rest of the world needs to either offer solutions, or shut the fuck up if they don't like what we are doing. Be part of the solution or get out of the way.

/rant off

Flame on!

JackHanma
29th October 04, 09:52 PM
That study is total junk:

From nicedoggie.net:

Tech Central Station took a look at the breathtakingly biased, unscientific, and downright innumerate Lancet Article making BBC headlines. As our own BC pointed out to me, these same idiots were largely responsible for the "Lancet fiasco" that linked autism to vaccinations. First let's take a look at the BBC spin.

A study published by the Lancet says the risk of death by violence for civilians in Iraq is now 58 times higher than before the US-led invasion.
Now let's see, if you go by the one-million people whose deaths are blamed on Saddam killed during his 25 years in power, you get an average of about 40,000 people killed a year. If you limit yourself to the approximately 750,000 he's said to have executed you get an average of 30,000 a year, or if you ignore all those who had their bodies dumped on their family's doorstep for a personal burial, focusing the discussion to the 400,000 in mass graves, you get 16,000 a year killed, all by our favorite mustachioed genocidal National Socialist. Unless Saddam had a way to "non-violently" kill all those people then a 58 fold jump would mean that either 3.5 million, 2.6 million, or 1.4 million Iraqis have died violently since we rolled in.

Yet all other current fatality estimates from the anti-war activists top out at 14,000 to 16,000 deaths, including those from every terrorist truck bombing. So are the anti-war activists over there missing at least 98% of violent deaths, even though they rush to each and every scene and jot down every wildly exaggerated claim, or is there another reason this research differs by two orders of magnitude (on violent deaths), and an order of magnitude overall, from every other estimate? (Two orders of magnitude is a hundredfold for those not mathematically inclined, like these researchers who somehow got published in "The Lancet", possibly for no other reason than being pustulant partisan pea brains simultaneously staining the reputation of both science and medicine).


The Lancet admits the research is based on a small sample - under 1,000 homes - but says the findings are "convincing".
"Convincing"? A poll of a thousand random people causes the researchers to conclude that somehow eighty-five thousand people died in a country full of cameras without anyone noticing; and the Lancet find the staggering discrepancy "convincing"?

The Iraq Body Count, a respected database run by a group of academics and peace activists, has put the number of reported civilian deaths at between 14,000-16,000.
Well screw all those peace activists out there taking down numbers, because a poll of 33 households and their neighbors (read the article) says the number is 100,000! Of those 33 chosen sites, 15 had suffered violence. Why not just poll 33 terrorist safe houses we targeted, from that sample extrapolate that every house in Iraq has been bombed, and make the number a cool million? Or just call people up and ask them how many family members were killed recently. If they say "83 infant daughters" write it down and go on. It's all sooo easy when you can bury bias under heaps and bunches of more bias, layered over with invalid sampling (they only called people in the hot spots), and lightly frosted with a flawed methodology.

The use of self-reported pre-war fatality levels is fatally flawed, since Saddam, like Hitler, wiped out whole families and whole tribes. If you'd have conducted a phone poll of post-World War Two Europeans you'd have found that only a statistically insignificant number of Jews reported any deaths during the war. By the standards of this Lancet "research" that would prove the Holocaust was a big lie, while in reality it shows that dead families don't answer their phones very often. That's the grievous, staggering blunder in trying to use polling to calculate death rates of genocidal regimes, which is why no reputable scientist will try it.

Violent deaths were mainly attributed to coalition forces - and most individuals reportedly killed were women and children.
And that alone tells you the researchers were wildly biased, if not outright Ba'athist party members, or do all the AK-47 toting Iraqi males use magic spells to avoid getting shot? It's always women and children, despite the fact that they aren't the ones shooting back at us. This is an old communist ploy from the Vietnam War, perpetuated by John Kerry no less, which would have us believe that somehow our infantry feels it's militarily important to take out the random toddler as opposed to the guy crouched behind the machine gun. Even regular (non-Ba'athist) Iraqis don't buy this line, since they've seen our troops move the women and children out of the way during combat. Put another way, just about every child killed during the fighting gets their picture shown on all the big media outlets, like the BBC, Al-Jazeera, and CBS. You might remember the boy who lost his family and his arms during the heavy combat phase, or some of the kids killed in an attack on a wedding party. Do you remember the press photos of 181 other kids, not in total throughout the war, but killed every single day? That's what this "research" is claiming, when you crunch the numbers.

Dr Les Roberts, who led the study, said: "Making conservative assumptions we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more, have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

"Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."
Now isn't that amazing, since we daily hear of dozens of Iraqis killed by suicide bombers. I guess the anti-American press must be missing the hundreds of women and children a day killed in US air strikes. A bit further on the article says

Lancet editor Richard Horton said: "With the admitted benefit of hindsight and from a purely public health perspective, it is clear that whatever planning did take place was grievously in error."
This is the same editor who had to apologize in his earlier shameful sham retraction.

The Lancet medical journal published the sham science in 1998. Editor Dr Richard Horton now rushed out "regret" for the "fatally flawed" research he had endorsed. BBC Online News.
Well, he's just done it again. The BBC does try to cover themselves by pointing out that all other estimates from the peace activists are staggeringly lower, without mentioning that their estimates are largely made up of victims of terrorist bombings on the one hand, and gun toting insurgent decapitation squads on the other. The Tech Central Station article sums up the politico-statistics quite nicely.

Have a look at those confidence levels. Yup, 95%. That is, a one in twenty chance that the effect simply does not exist. Look at the relative risk ratios (leave out Falluja; I don't think anyone is really very surprised to see a higher mortality rate there): 1.1-2.3. It isn't just that it is an absurdly wide one (note, a relative risk ratio of 1 would mean no effect whatsoever) it is that if this paper was written to generally accepted statistical standards it would never have been published. With a 95% confidence level a relative risk ratio of anything less than three is regarded as statistically insignificant. Just to clarify that, by "insignificant" no one is stating that it is not important to those people who undoubtedly have been killed during the War. What is being said is that we don't have enough information to be able to say anything meaningful about it. "Statistically insignificant" means "we don't know".

In effect, what has been found in this paper is nothing. Nada. Zip.

Except of course that one of the two leading medical journals in the world has published a piece of shoddy research four days before the US elections with the obvious motive of influencing them. Sad, that, and my apologies as an Englishman that it should be one of my countrymen who did such a thing.
It's more of the same bogus science and bogus statistics trotted out in unabashed support of a National Socialist dictator who used poison gas on kids. We've seen it during the 14 month "rush to war" (Roosevelt waited a whole day, wouldn't ya know), during the war, and after the war.

Interestingly, a reporter walking into an Iraqi morgue can get hoodwinked with a thirty-fold exaggeration of casualties, since 450,000 Iraqis have likely died since we rolled into Baghdad just based on 18 months in a country of 25,374,691 people, a 68.2 year average life span, and a very rough look at their age distributions. Even the moonbats at Iraq Body Count have only come up with a maximum of 16,312 total deaths attributable to both sides in this war, and they count goats as civilians. The vast difference in these two numbers indicates that about 3.6% of Iraq deaths are attributable to the war, so for every person blown up by terrorists (which counts toward the IBC total) a morgue should contain 27 others who died of normal causes.

Perhaps instead of being shocked that a morgue is nearly full *gasp* the press should take a math class and realize that if a morgue isn't pretty full then some idiot hospital planner built way too much morgue capacity for the given population. Note that during the last French heat wave, when an extra 13,000 or so people baked to death due to the wisdom of French socialist planning, the morgues overflowed and they stuffed croaked frogs in refrigerated food warehouses. Death rates in large populations are calculated just that closely, by either math or experience (we just filled up, so we need to build a few more spaces). But many in the press aren't the brightest on the block, and you could certainly get them to cover some moonbat disaster story by merely pointing out that all the graves in your local cemetery are full.

The horror… The horror...

Or to more fully quote Captain Willard and Colonel Kurtz.

Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.

punchingdummy
29th October 04, 10:28 PM
Body counts in a military theatre are not really counts. More like abstract algebra.

Scrapper
30th October 04, 04:15 PM
Well said, Jack! What I would give for a truly objective media outlet!

Stick
31st October 04, 08:17 PM
Listening to Air America now, first time in about 8 months..... and guess what recent report they decided to talk about?

Yup, I sent them a little e-mail covering some of the big points brought up here.

I'd call, but I'd really rather not pay long distance, 866, what is that, like the New York area code?! O_o

Blegh.

Stick
31st October 04, 10:26 PM
Holy crap, they actually responded requesting further details.

Judah Maccabee
9th November 04, 05:27 PM
More information on the Lancet study and its questionable outcomes:

http://www.fumento.com/military/lancetscripps.html


Because the sample size was so small, the range for deaths was wider than Mick Jagger's mouth: 8,000 to 194,000. So Roberts and company just split the difference. They said the tiny sample size was necessary because the interviewers were in constant danger. No doubt they meant being caught in the crosshairs of an F-16, rather than any possible threat from those jolly terrorists who routinely kidnap civilians and slowly saw off their heads.



Consider, too, that 100,000 deaths during the survey period averages out to over 180 a day. Have you heard anyone even claim we killed anywhere near that number on one day, much less every day? The bad guys wouldn't even try to pull that off. They left it to The Lancet.

Even anti-war and anti-American groups and individuals have indicated the Lancet figure is outlandish. "These numbers seem to be inflated," due "to overcounting," Marc Garlasco, of Human Rights Watch told the Washington Post. The website www.iraqbodycount.com estimates about 14,000-16,000 deaths since the war began. The Evil One himself, bin Laden, in his pre-election video, made reference to the Iraq war and stated "over 15,000 of our people have been killed."

supercrap
9th November 04, 05:45 PM
You would all change your tune if the collateral damage and acceptable numbers of civilian deaths were yours and your families.

Heard on the radio this morning - 200 houses destroyed by Americans in Fellujah. What the fuck? Are they just going -

"Ooh! This one! BOOOOM! Nope, not there. Let's try this one! BOOOM! Nope, not there either. How bout that one? BOOOM! Ooops, not there either. Hey, have we reached our threshold for acceptable civilian casualties yet? No? BOOOOM!!!"

Judah Maccabee
9th November 04, 06:20 PM
My family doesn't try to use the Geneva Conventions as an offensive weapon to try to conceal war production facilities. Schools and hospitals are not meant to be staging areas for military operations. And if they are used in such a manner, the Conventions clearly state that they are viable targets.

If people are aiming rifles from windows, a tank will likely fire a 120mm round at them to guarantee they cannot fire.

Red Elvis
9th November 04, 10:29 PM
Heard on the radio this morning - 200 houses destroyed by Americans in Fellujah. What the fuck? Are they just going -

"Ooh! This one! BOOOOM! Nope, not there. Let's try this one! BOOOM! Nope, not there either. How bout that one? BOOOM! Ooops, not there either. Hey, have we reached our threshold for acceptable civilian casualties yet? No? BOOOOM!!!"

LMAO... Yup, that's exactly what they're doing! We stupid Americans just like to blow shit up for no reason. Somebody better tell those wily insurgents to not hide out in peoples houses anymore 'cause Americans are out to blow them up.

It's becoming more abundantly clear with each of your posts that you have no idea whatsoever what real combat involves. Your arguements here are the same from your other posts concerning civilian casualties. Do you think the insurgents are just fighting in the open and that we are blowing up houses randomly? I have news for you, they are holed up in peoples houses, in hospitals, in peoples stores, schools etc. If they are in there shooting at us they will get killed and the building will more likely than not be destroyed. If they are in a home chances are that civilians are not! Americans are not just running around blowing up random shit.

supercrap
9th November 04, 10:50 PM
I'd hope that what is coming across from my post is my total abhorrence at the fact that there is even such a thing as acceptable civilian losses, my amazement at the hypocracy of the Americans who, were it their home town being bombed, would be singing a completely different tune to 'yeah, civilians die, shit happens'.

Fucking hypocrites. Take a few bombs on your head, then come back and tell me that civilian casualties are acceptable. Watch your little sister hiding in her house, when it is accidentally blown up by mortar fire intended for a rebel-held building. (taken from the Sydney Morning Herald: "In the thick of the Falluja fight two marines found themselves on a rooftop pinned down against a low, crumbling wall by rebels firing rocket-propelled grenades from a building near the centre. Their commanders called for artillery fire on the rebel position, but the artillery only flattened the building next door.

"This is crazy," one marine said. "Yeah," his comrade said, "and we've only taken one house."")

Also from SMH:

"Iraqis who fled Falluja ahead of the US assault have described a city deserted and already badly damaged by weeks of bombing."

Weeks of bombing? To take out 3000 rebels?

"Although American and Iraqi officials insist they are fighting with the support of ordinary Fallujans, residents spoke of their hostility to the US operation."

"Falluja is dead after 4pm. You cannot see anyone around. Sometimes you see a man by himself staying to protect his house or his shop from being looted. Before it was a prosperous, crowded city. Now it is completely destroyed."

Wow, sounds like a good job.

"In Falluja, residents said US planes bombed a medical clinic in the city centre, causing an unknown number of casualties. The clinic had been treating civilians and rebels, they said."

Theres rebels in there! Theres also civilians! Lets blow it up anyway and hope we get some of them!

FighterJones
10th November 04, 12:11 AM
Simply, War is hell.

Red Elvis
10th November 04, 12:53 AM
I'd hope that what is coming across from my post is my total abhorrence at the fact that there is even such a thing as acceptable civilian losses, my amazement at the hypocracy of the Americans who, were it their home town being bombed, would be singing a completely different tune to 'yeah, civilians die, shit happens'.

We all are against civilians being killed and that we can agree on... that has also been beaten to death. What you fail to understand is that loss of civilians is a fact of war. Go and read my post where I mentioned the loss of civilians in WWII. We are much better today at mitigating that loss then we were back then. If I had insurgents in my neighborhood I would either take my family and get the hell out or fight them myself. You are from England? In WWII your country lost 60,000 civilian casualties but you kept on fighting...


Fucking hypocrites. Take a few bombs on your head, then come back and tell me that civilian casualties are acceptable. Watch your little sister hiding in her house, when it is accidentally blown up by mortar fire intended for a rebel-held building.

If I was in a city where 60% of the population had already fled with my sister I would be a fucking moron.




Weeks of bombing? To take out 3000 rebels?

Ummm... that is a crap load of people to be holed up in a MOUT environment. Again, you speak from having zero comprehension of military tactics.



"In Falluja, residents said US planes bombed a medical clinic in the city centre, causing an unknown number of casualties. The clinic had been treating civilians and rebels, they said."

Theres rebels in there! Theres also civilians! Lets blow it up anyway and hope we get some of them!


Like I said, believe what you want but we don't go around killing civilians on purpose. Maybe we should have used the SAS surgical strike teams!!! :redface:

Red Elvis
10th November 04, 12:58 AM
Supercrap.... simply put, we are all against civilian deaths. Now, instead of posting about it 20 times rehashing quotes from newspapers, how about we talk seriously about how you think we can rid Iraq or Fullujah of insurgents without killing a single civilian. I'd like to know. Stop complaining and provide some insight. Nothing worse than a complainer who has no solutions.

nihilist
10th November 04, 02:48 AM
We will bring peace to that country if we have to kill every last one of em.

Kayne
10th November 04, 03:54 AM
...how about we talk seriously about how you think we can rid Iraq or Fullujah of insurgents without killing a single civilian. I'd like to know. Stop complaining and provide some insight. Nothing worse than a complainer who has no solutions.
Well, this one's simplistic, and I can already tell that you won't like it, but, you know, the lot of you could leave. No more insurgents, because you wouldn't be there to rebel against, and you probably wouldn't kill any civilians by doing it. How does that sound? :happy:

DANINJA
10th November 04, 04:34 AM
I dont think u can get rid of insurgents especially if you invaded their country.This action will only spread the insurgency to other places in Iraq-i think there have been an increased number of attacks on US troops outside of Falluja(Mosul and Ramadi)

As for civilian deaths in falluja :

'Scores of civilians' killed in Falluja

Residents say scores of civilians have been killed


Muhammad Abbud said he watched his nine-year-old son bleed to death at their Falluja home, unable to take him to hospital as fighting raged in the streets and bombs rained down on the Iraqi city.


In the midst of a US onslaught and hemmed in by a round-the-clock curfew, he said he had little choice but to bury his eldest son, Ghaith, in the garden.

"My son got shrapnel in his stomach when our house was hit at dawn, but we couldn't take him for treatment," said Abbud, a teacher. "We buried him in the garden because it was too dangerous to go out. We did not know how long the fighting would last."

Residents say scores of civilians have been killed or wounded in 24 hours of fighting since US-led forces pushed deep into the city on Monday evening.

Doctors said people brought in at least 15 dead civilians at the main clinic in Falluja on Monday. By Tuesday, there were no clinics open, residents said, and no way to count casualties.

Medical supplies low

US and Iraqi forces seized control of the city's main hospital, across the Euphrates river from Falluja proper, hours before the onslaught began.


US forces have been steadily
moving deeper into the city

Overnight US bombardments hit a clinic inside the Sunni Muslim city, killing doctors, nurses and patients, residents said. US military authorities denied the reports.

Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said troops detained 38 fighters entrenched at Falluja hospital and accused doctors there of exaggerating civilian casualties.

Sami al-Jumaili, a doctor at Falluja hospital, said the city was running out of medical supplies.

"There is not a single surgeon in Falluja. We had one ambulance hit by US fire and a doctor wounded. There are scores of injured civilians in their homes who we can't move," he said by telephone from a house where he had gone to help the wounded.

"A 13-year-old child just died in my hands."

ICRC voices concern

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said on Tuesday that it was extremely worried about the fate of people wounded in the battle for control of the Iraqi city of Falluja.



"The ICRC urges the belligerents to ensure that all those in need of such care - whether friend or foe - be given access to medical facilities and that medical personnel and vehicles can function without hindrance at all times," a statement said.



The organisation said it was "deeply concerned about reports that the injured cannot receive adequate medical care".



Families flee


Weekend air raids destroyed a clinic funded by an Islamic relief organisation in the centre of Falluja and a nearby warehouse used to store medical supplies, witnesses said.


Residents say there is no power
and food supplies are running low

Many families fled the city of 300,000 long before the offensive began. An official from a Sunni Muslim group with links to some fighters in Falluja said on Monday only about 60,000 people remained.

Residents say they have no power and are using kerosene lamps at night. They say they keep to ground floors for safety. Food shops have been closed for six days.

"My kids are hysterical with fear," said Farhan Salih. "They are traumatised by the sound but there is nowhere to take them."

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Monday he did not foresee large numbers of civilian casualties in the assault, saying US forces were disciplined and precise.

Those words were of little comfort to the Abbud family, sitting in a house damaged by the bomb that killed their child.

"We just bandaged his stomach and gave him water, but he was losing a lot of blood. He died this afternoon," said Abbud.

Red Elvis
10th November 04, 10:42 AM
Well, this one's simplistic, and I can already tell that you won't like it, but, you know, the lot of you could leave. No more insurgents, because you wouldn't be there to rebel against, and you probably wouldn't kill any civilians by doing it. How does that sound? :happy:

Well, I'm not advocating that we be there in the first place but your right in that we could just leave. Since that's not going to happen though until the country is quasi stabilized, how can we do a better job of not killing civilians then they are already doing?

Edit: Not like your solution? I actualy like your solution and I would love it if we could just leave but how does that solve anything?

Kayne
11th November 04, 09:59 PM
Well, I'm not advocating that we be there in the first place but your right in that we could just leave. Since that's not going to happen though until the country is quasi stabilized, how can we do a better job of not killing civilians then they are already doing?

Edit: Not like your solution? I actualy like your solution and I would love it if we could just leave but how does that solve anything?
There is no other solution. And as long as we're in Iraq, we are killing people, not just 'civilians' and statistics, but men, women, mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons and daughters. Iraq won't stabilise until our politicians tell us to leave, or until we've practically decimated the population, killing every man who wishes to defend his country from the invading armies, wishes revenge for the death/s of his loved ones, or has something to gain from ousting foreign influence in his country. Undoubtebly, Iraq will draw to another bloody stalemate like Vietnam.

Red Elvis
11th November 04, 10:11 PM
There is no other solution. And as long as we're in Iraq, we are killing people, not just 'civilians' and statistics, but men, women, mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, sons and daughters. Iraq won't stabilise until our politicians tell us to leave, or until we've practically decimated the population, killing every man who wishes to defend his country from the invading armies, wishes revenge for the death/s of his loved ones, or has something to gain from ousting foreign influence in his country. Undoubtebly, Iraq will draw to another bloody stalemate like Vietnam.

I'm going to try to be more optimistic about the outcome than it being another Vietnam because of the difference in circumstances. So on that we can agree to disagree. I will say however, that regarding your line of thinking on revenge I agree 100%. The more we muddle around in these Arab countries the more people we draw in to becoming future terrorists.

Then again, I guess there will always be terrorists against the U.S. and Europe though...

Hawkeye
11th November 04, 10:50 PM
As I said in the Moore thread, we cannot simply "pull out". We're in too deep now. We must see this through to the end or the 1000+ lives of our boys will be for nothing. We owe it to them to see this thing through.

Kayne
12th November 04, 11:29 PM
Fuck off, mate. I will not accept that sort of bullshit sentamentality. You may be willing to sacrifice the lives of another thousand troops, another 15,000 civilians, god knows how many enemy combatants (yes, even those guys are people, too) to a ficticious cause, but I would be a bit more cautious than to say that we owe it to the thousands of dead to send another fucking thousand their way. If you're not fighting in Iraq already, mate, then your words are the worst, most hollow type of bullshit. Word can't express the kind of disgust that I have for your naive disregard for human life.