Apparently, we have to bomb Iraq to oblivion in order to save it: an estimated 100,000 deaths thus far. To borrow the incomparable Juan Cole’s mathematical slide-rule, that would be the equivalent, in American population terms, of 1.1 million people here.
“Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children,” said the report, conducted jointly by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad.
If, when the elections come, Iraq should vote in an Iran-style theocracy of fundamentalist ayatollahs, what then? Do we just pack it up, and swallow the fact that the whole thing was in vain, and all we did was install a regime even more prone to terrorism and anti-Americanism than Saddam? I ask that because as we bomb and strafe more cities and kill and maim more civilians, radicalization of the people is all but inevitable. Look at history and see how often a radical leader arises in a time of desperation.
1
By Devi
If, when the elections come, Iraq should vote in an Iran-style theocracy of fundamentalist ayatollahs, what then?
We give them truckloads of cash for oil, making them hate the US and have the finances to do something about it.
October 28, 2004 @ 7:20 pm | Comment
2
By ACB
As a percentage of Iraq’s total population killed in one year, this must put the US on a similar footing to Japan during the Sino-Japanese war.
Maybe we should nuke Washington.
OK, so I haven’t actually done the maths and don’t know if it is even a close race, but it is a very large number of civilians for an urban war.
If somebody would like to compair percentages with other attrocities (The invasion of Poland and Russia, the massacre of native Americans etc), it might show more people that what America is doing is an attrocity comparable to histories nastiest wars.
October 28, 2004 @ 7:40 pm | Comment
3
By richard
I think it’s the equivalent of 1.1 million Americans. Imagine how we’d feel if the good liberators who came to free us killed 1.1 million Americans.
October 28, 2004 @ 7:45 pm | Comment
4
By j.j.
This number is completely out of sense. Not a surprise that some of you endorse it.
October 29, 2004 @ 6:21 am | Comment
5
By richard
jj, you go ahead and believe what you want to believe. But that number is not at all “out of sense.”
October 29, 2004 @ 7:43 am | Comment
6
By j.j.
“The scientists who wrote the report concede that the data they based their projections on were of “limited precision,” because the quality of the information depends on the accuracy of the household interviews used for the study. The interviewers were Iraqi, most of them doctors”.
It’s not a scientific date. It’s a projection of a poll. It contradicts every number released before by the most pacifist, the most anti-war, the most anti-american organisations.
It makes no sense.
October 29, 2004 @ 8:20 am | Comment
7
By richard
Even if it’s off by 50,000, it’s still pretty grim, dontcha think?
October 29, 2004 @ 9:08 am | Comment
8
By j.j.
The numbers aren’t those. The worst range is around 10.000-15.000. The worst. I know that “one victim is too much” etc. etc… But if we begin to count victims the war was the best choice because Saddam regime’s victims were much more… The issue is another, now: and those numbers aren’t real.
October 29, 2004 @ 10:15 am | Comment
9
By richard
Just one question: How the fuck do you know? I am willing to believe you. Evidence, please.
October 29, 2004 @ 10:28 am | Comment
10
By j.j.
You should demand evidence to The Lancet. The number of 100.000 is not mine.
But, however, this is one of the most anti-american websites on the net.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net
Please, read their count.
October 29, 2004 @ 12:53 pm | Comment
11
By bla
even if its between 10k-100k how do you know who is civilian and who is not??? how can you tell between combatants and civilians…just by uniform?!?!?!
November 19, 2004 @ 9:17 pm | Comment