Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

So how is this any better than under Saddam, if not worse ? almost 67,000 civilians killed and there are some who still beileve that they have liberated Iraq and freed them and the Invasion was done under pure noble intentions.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikleaks ... d=11949670


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zuRGEwb ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsTOTHVm ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHVE5maB ... re=related

What is striking is the high amount of civilian casualties compared to combattants killed.

On a more general note:

Civilians have borne the brunt of modern warfare, with 10 civilians dying for every soldier in wars fought since the mid-20th century, compared with 9 soldiers killed for every civilian in World War I, according to a 2001 study by the International Committee of the Red Cross.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23casualties.html

Seems that armies that succeed is relatively killing less civilians than the above (10 civilians for 1 soldier) are amongst the most moral indeed.

What the leaks also expose are the lies that were told concerning not counting the numbers of Iraqis killed.

The UK Channel 4 programme Dispatches ran a documentary last week on the subject - well worth a watch.

FD is right - the numbers of civilians killed by the US etc dwarfs the numbers of civilians killed by the Israelis - but it is nice change to see the phrase 'most moral army' being used in a non-ironic way. You don't see that done too much these days. I think it's sweet and cute that there are still some die-hards out there.

Cheers,
Shafique

DUDE...the youtube links are for the dispatches doc....

Oops - didn't click on the youtube links (obviously)..

Well - great minds think alike, then!

Cheers,
Shafique

I was actually referring to the US army. 3 civilians for one combattant is far below the average of 10 civilians against 1 combattant in modern day warfare.

Well you can't really compare the WW's with this conflict. Many cities were bombed indiscriminately and many case civilians purposely fired upon, weapons were "dumb". It was an accepted fact any bombing runs will bring civilain casulaties. The Nazi V2's were just pointed in direction of the UK and fired . Hoping their crude navigation systems worked and they fell on the intended cities, oviously targeting civilians.

While here BB's went out of their to assure the public no civilians would be harmed. So having all the new smart weapon tech accurate with a few feet and supposedly, trying their utmost best not to harm any civiliian its a pretty dismal record

I'm surprised that Islamic insurgents only managed to kill 60,000 civilians during that period.

But it's interesting to see the loon belief that 660,000 (in 2005) and over one million (2006) civilians were killed only a few years into the war and the loons who believed that.

It shows the disconnect loons have from reality - I believe shafique tried citing the Lancet study back on the other forum, but I simply dismissed the report and didn't bother citing Iraqi government figures since it would have been hopeless arguing with a loon.

Is there any possibilty of ever having a chance to discuss anything here without shafs and eh playground shinanigans getting in the way. I for one am get tired of it.

/rant over

Again I request the admin to give these boys their own little subforum to play in !

LOL - let's gloss over the fact that eh is living in his own fantasy world again and ignoring what the facts are in the OP.

Apparenlty, the leaks actually reveal crimes by the US military which are prosecutable in the USA - so the discussion and focus on 'secrecy' and whether the info should have been leaked or not is being seen as a bit of smokescreen.

The damaging revelations also show that Saddam-Hussein era tactics were being employed by the US in Iraq on a scale that is more than just a few rogue soldiers. And what is even more damaging is that much of what is being uncovered took place after the world was reassured that this had been cleared up - i.e. AFTER Abu Ghraib.

I presume that FD hasn't digested these facts yet - for it would inconceivable to use these leaks to argue that the US army was moral (let alone relatively more moral than other armies).

Cheers,
Shafique

So you didn't attempt to cite the Lancet study before?

Or are have developed convenient amnesia again?