Death Rates in Iraq and Here

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 29 2006, 08:59 AM) [snapback]355195[/snapback]</div>

What?!?!?!? i'm not comparing civil versus military, i'm responding to your question about comparing death rates... by definition your initial posting could be considered to be comparing civil versus military, ie here versus there, and this entire thread is centered around that...

Also, i didn't put forth any "definition of defeat" - way to put words in my mouth again.

as for innocent civilian Americans dieing... care to elaborate? Are you talking about 9/11? and when you say seriously... what exactly do you mean? didn't we enter a war because of it (even if the war has been mismanaged)? i'd call that "taking it seriously".

And i love you're statement "because of people like you"... Yes, it's all because i'm sitting here, posing a perfectly valid argument that there are more murders in Iraq than there are here at home, which you try to obfuscate the issue and place blame on people who have absolutely no say in the way the war is being run.

 

Sorry, dbermanmd, it's your responsibility. As the occupying force you have responsibility for order. If you don't think you're capable of protecting the population of a country don't invade it!!! And if you must invade it, at least pay some attention to the experts telling you you'd need a much stronger force to maintain order, instead of sacking them. (See my earlier comment about going "la la la" with your hands over your ears).

How many innocent civilian Iraqis will die before you take this seriously? At some point you have to take responsibility for your actions.

I hate to break this to you, but the number of dead American innocent civilians now pales into insignificance, thanks to your efforts in Iraq. Not that those dead civilians had anything to do with Iraq, of course.

Anyone who seriously thinks ~3,000 dead Americans is somehow a bigger deal than ~600,000 dead Iraqis needs some sort of psychological check-up. And that's without even considering the impact on the lives of the tens of millions of survivors.

What's doubly sick is that people like you can simultaneously claim that you invaded Iraq for the benefit of the population, saving them from their suffering under Saddam (hah!), but you clearly don't give a toss how much they suffer under you. :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 29 2006, 10:38 AM) [snapback]355189[/snapback]</div>

I'm happy to compare other rates and provide a list of Iraqi civilian deaths by region below. But lets make it even. Let's compare some areas of equal population. New York and Massachusetts have a population about equal to that of Iraq (25.3 mil comp to 26 mil). Now, the number of murders in those two states over a four year period (2002-2005, the latest available) is 4265. The number of Iraqi civilian deaths since the war began is 44,206. That leaves out Iraqi police deaths, which is another 2578.

Do you really think if 44000 people had been killed in New York and Massachusetts since 2002 the real estate market would be good there? Would we consider those states safe?

State of New York — Population: 18,976,457
Murder rate 2002:909 2003:934 2004:889 2005:874

Massachusetts — Population: 6,349,097
Murder rate 2002:173 2003:140 2004:171 2005:175

2 US states, total population, 25,325,554
Total murders, 2002-2005: 4265

Iraq — Population: 26,074,906
CIVILIAN DEATHS BY REGION
Region Civilian Deaths
Dahuk 6
Nineveh 1,572
Irbil 140
Tamim 1,005
Sulaimaniya 87
Salahuddin 1,452
Diyala 1,861
Baghdad 28,154
Babil 1,739
Anbar 2,514
Wasit 625
Karbala 1,031
Qadisiya 163
Misan 49
Najaf 877
Muthanna 123
Dhiqar 978
Basra 1,768
Unknown location 67
Total 44,206

Source: Iraq, BBC News Online, October 23, 2006. http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf
Source: US, FBI's September 2006 release of the "UCR for Metropolitan Statistical Areas" (MSA)

And remember:
>>Up to a hundred bodies a day are found dumped on waste ground and rubbish tips around Baghdad. They've usually been dreadfully tortured. Acid and electric drills are the favourite methods and many of the bodies are still wearing police handcuffs.--BBC, Channel 4, Nov 7, 2006<<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 29 2006, 07:45 AM) [snapback]355166[/snapback]</div>

oh, but those were victims of "sectarian violence" so that doesn't count...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 29 2006, 08:45 AM) [snapback]355166[/snapback]</div>

I forgot to mention earlier, you write as though the use of WMD's against the Kurds occured during the invasion of Kuwait when in fact they occured during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980–1988. The war is noted for extensive use of chemical weapons by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops, Iranian civilians and Iraqi Kurds.

At that time, the U.S. was in tacitly in favor of the war, insofar as it was against Iran. The U.S. sold Iraq $200 million in helicopters, which were used by the Iraqi military in the war. These were the only direct U.S.-Iraqi military sales and were valued to be about 0.6% of Iraq's conventional weapons imports during the war.[30] Ted Koppel of ABC Nightline reported the following, however, on June 9, 1992: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush Sr., operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into [an aggressive power]" and “Reagan/Bush administrations permitted — and frequently encouraged — the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq.†The Reagan Administration secretly began to allow Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Egypt to transfer to Iraq American howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons. These shipments were done without the approval of the U.S. Congress and were in clear violation of the Arms Export Control Act as well as international law.[31] Reagan personally asked Italy’s Prime Minister Guilio Andreotti to channel arms to Iraq.[32]

So, no, I wasn't cheering Saddam, although, if you were of voting age at that time, it seems to me likely that you were.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War....2FTechnology_2

 

It's obvious that you don't understand a lot of things. Like any opinion that doesn't exactly match what you want. so lets make it very simple and clear cut:

I understand that it's sunni versus shia, and that Americans are doing very little killing.

I fully support the reasons behind entering wars where we are attacked - such as Pearl Harbor. (However, note that there was no direct link between Iraq and 9/11, nor were there WMD's in Iraq - your words here.

Instead, i would prefer we went in with clear cut goals, plans, and enough support to actually get things done. With proper US military support, i fully believe we could have prevented many of the problems from escalating to the point they currently are at. With proper support now, i believe we could reduce the number of deaths and effectively force the differing parties to "come to the table" as the saying goes.

As for the rest of your post, you are a hypocrite in the extreme. you say "don't put words in my mouth" and in the very next sentence put words in someone else's mouth.

You say pick two areas in the US with higher murder rates... will it really make that big a difference? There is absolutely no two equivalent areas in the US that would have murder rates that high. we're talking 10 times the murder rates in New York and Massachusetts.


Here's what you need to reply to (ie answer these questions!):
(I'll even give you easy answers you can just check if you don't want to elaborate)

define civil war please.
__ Iraq is currently in a civil war between sunni, shia and kurds
__ Iraq is not in a civil war because we are rebuilding them. murders are due to extremists and do not represent the true will of the people they supposedly represent
__ Iraq is not in a civil war because the death toll isn't high enough

for reference:

Union:
110,000 killed in action,
360,000 total dead,
275,200 wounded

Confederacy:
93,000 killed in action,
258,000 total dead
137,000+ wounded

you keep bringing up civil versus military, but always in the context of the other party misunderstanding it. please clearly define what you mean by civil and military, and how it applies to this issue.
__ Civil refers to murders of civilians by civilians in the US. this does not apply to Iraq because the murders are military in nature (or part of the sectarian violence
__ Military refers to murders performed by an established military from a recognized political power, like US troops in Iraq, or members of the official Iraqi military.

__ Other (please elaborate)


Why do you keep saying people would prefer sadam was still in power, when nobody has said anything like that?
__ The following people have publicly stated their support for sadam: (please list names and link to quotes from other threads we may have not read)
__ I was making an assumption based on an individuals opposition to the way we are handling the situation in Iraq.

Finally, you seem to be trying to make the point that murders in Iraq aren't equivalent to murders in the US - because they're sectarian violence, or it's civil versus military, something... but you started the thread by doing this comparison. would you care to specify how you feel about this in clear terms? do you need a check box (as i've seen you give other people)?
___ i believe the murders in Iraq (stated 3709 in October) are equivalent to murders in our nations cities and states
___ i believe the murders in Iraq are a military issue, and thus aren't equivalent to civilian murders in our cities and states
___ i believe the murders in Iraq are due to sectarian violence and thus aren't equivalent to civilian murders in our cities and states.

 

You're realize you're trying to talk sense to the senseless don't you?

 

i do, but at the same time, i feel like i should give him one chance in each thread to redeem himself and clearly state his opinion.

 

if we feel the need to ask, and provide something like that, then your positions clearly aren't all that clear cut to the rest of us... please, answer the questions. or are you afraid that we'll finally see you as the US hating, pro-Sadam person you really are?

As for FDR declaring war... First off, that was way before my time, i don't see a need to throw my support in either direction. However, I can state several facts to you: Japan and Germany were allies at the time. Japan drew us into the war. We agreed that the focus should first be Germany at the Arcadia Conference, in which it was strategically decided that, in order to win the war, we needed to free Europe first (otherwise it would pretty much have just been us and Russia). There were many political, moral, ethical, and strategic reasons for fighting Germany.

However, what does that have to do with the point of the thread? Please, as i asked in my previous posting, answer the questions in clear and concise responses so we can be sure of where you stand. We've all tried our best to make our positions clear, clarifying points when you've asked for it. Now please have the courtesy to do the same.

*edit*
for the sake of everyone here, I'd like to specify that i have never said one way or the other my position on taking Sadam out. I'm not a big shot politician or even pretend to understand everything going on behind the scenes. I believe very strongly that the media is essentially run by one party or the other, and that it's all slanted one way or another, and there is very little truth you can pull from it without pulling their slant as well.

I will not say over a message board to people i've never met what i feel on a controversial issue such as this. rather, i'll take it for granted that we went in, and go from there, thus my statements supporting our troops and condemning those at the top who don't give them the vision and support they need to get the job done.

Please, Doberman, don't put words in my mouth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 29 2006, 02:34 PM) [snapback]355284[/snapback]</div>

Frankly, I thought New York would be enough of an urban high crime area for ya. But here ya go. Here's another configuration incorporating the Miami drug trade and the urban decay of Detroit and D.C.
DC — Population: 572,059
2002:262 2003:248 2004:198 2005:196
Michigan Population 9,938,444
2002:678 2003:612 2004:643 2005:616
State of Florida — Population: 17,789,864
Murder rate 2002:911 2003:924 2004:946 2005:883
2 US states & 1 district, total population, 28,300,367
Total murders, 2002-2005: 7767

Iraq — Population: 26,074,906
CIVILIAN DEATHS: Total 44,206

It's not even close. But please, move to Iraq if you think it's safer. I bet you could get the real estate at a STEAL. Although you might experience a negative mileage impact on your Prius due to the roadside bombs.

Oh, and lets not forget the number of Iraqi policemen murdered during this period, not included in the above figure: 5,786

But to really put it in perspective, let's look at the 2006 MONTHLY rates of civilians killed by violence in Iraq (Source: http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf)
Jan:1671 Feb:2054 March:2249 April:2169 May:2532 June:2990 July:3405 August:2855

These numbers come from the reduced murder stats for Iraq of the Brookings Insitutute, not of the Lancet. And Iraq's murder rate is likely underreported:
>>Last year, Baghdad morgue director Faik Baker fled to Jordan after he said he came under pressure to not report deaths especially those caused by death squads.<<--AP, Sept 12, 2006

Oh, and here's the latest, Associated Press, 47 minutes ago:
>>A total of 52 bullet-riddled bodies, some of them bound and blindfolded and bearing signs of torture, were found in various locations around Baghdad, according to officials of the Interior Ministry who spoke on condition of anonymity because of security measures.<<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MegansPrius @ Nov 29 2006, 02:32 PM) [snapback]355400[/snapback]</div>

I think you have the most persuasive argument against the comparison. I'm always uncomfortable with these kinds of comparisons because often they compare two different things. While Dr. Berman did not do this, I have heard others compare the war dead with auto accident victims, or deaths due to smoking. Having lost too many friends and family members, I know there is no solace in knowing they died doing something they chose to do, but there is an added layer of grief when a loved one is a victim of violence.

Colin Powell reportedly told President Bush that if he "broke it, he bought it" prior to the invasion. Our military excels at winning battles, but I fear we do not have the patience, will or determination to "rebuild". It could be argued that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq were better off under Saddam and the Taliban compared to the expected bloodbath if we remove ourselves precipitiously, but it appears that is exactly what we will do, just as we did in southeast Asia, where millions died after we left.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Nov 30 2006, 05:07 AM) [snapback]355632[/snapback]</div>

I think that's the question, then. If someone believes going into Iraq was a mistake, then that's an interesting viewpoint, but what does it mean for the current situation? That belief doesn't translate into a plan to mitigate the possible carnage that awaits our next actions.

Are we more or less responsible for the death of millions if we simply pack up and leave to save 1,000 American volunteers a year? If one third of the Iraqi population is slaughtered, do those 1,000 American volunteer lives per year outweigh the millions of Iraqis?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Nov 30 2006, 10:15 AM) [snapback]355657[/snapback]</div>

It's not a question of "if there's a civil war". There's a civil war there right now. We can stay there and get caught in the crossfire, or we can pack our bags and let them sort it out themselves.

 

But there is more to it than just loss of life, and I'm not refering to the monetry cost. It is degrading our military's ability to respond, and is a potential distraction if a serious threat is to come along. The Taliban is making headway back into Afghanistan since we left. Some states ability to fight wildfires has been degraded due to the drain on the National Guard.

The cost can be more than the current loss of those volunteers if we need to counter a real threat with a worn out military.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 30 2006, 07:49 AM) [snapback]355671[/snapback]</div>

I never used the term "civil war", because I'm not sure it applies. There is an un-recognized "group" fighting a guerilla war against a democratically elected government, so its probably more of an insurgency than a civil war. But the semantics aside, do you believe less people will die if we leave?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ShellyT @ Nov 30 2006, 07:57 AM) [snapback]355679[/snapback]</div>

Wildfires may be better left alone from an ecological standpoint, but that's another topic ...

Afghanistan is a concern, and I would hate to see the gains in civil liberties there eroded again. It is a NATO operation now, but our assistance would help the matter greatly.

What do you think would happen to the people of Iraq if we left Iraq immediately?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Nov 30 2006, 07:01 PM) [snapback]355995[/snapback]</div>

Will less Iraqis die if we leave? No. Will more Iraqis die if we leave? Probably not. Will less American soldiers die if we leave? Definitely.

That's good enough for me. Let's leave.

Furthermore, if we leave, will whatever government that comes out of the smoking rubble in the end hate the U.S.? Definitely.

If we stay, will the people who are really in charge hate the U.S.? Definitely.

No reason not to cut our losses.