Thank You America

**econ21** · 07-22-2009, 02:11

Originally Posted by Centurion1

Maybe i am wrong and there are many things the US government is covering up. for example, the contractors (mercenaries) are not recorded.

I don't think the US killed 300k people. But the argument is about how many have died violently since the invasion of Iraq - whether killed by Coalition armies, the Iraqi army, insurgents or militias. To the best of my knowledge, the US government does not cover up Iraqi casualties, it just refuses to try to count them. This makes it conveniently easy to shout down high estimates as lacking evidence. My government - the UK - does exactly the same thing.

I suspect that if the coalition forces in Iraq before and Afghanistan/Pakistan attempted to keep tract of civilian deaths, they would be far more effective. Killing the people you are trying to save is not smart and the first step in trying to avoid it is knowing that you are doing it.

**HoreTore** · 07-22-2009, 06:51

Originally Posted by econ21

I don't think the US killed 300k people. But the argument is about how many have died violently since the invasion of Iraq - whether killed by Coalition armies, the Iraqi army, insurgents or militias. To the best of my knowledge, the US government does not cover up Iraqi casualties, it just refuses to try to count them. This makes it conveniently easy to shout down high estimates as lacking evidence. My government - the UK - does exactly the same thing.

I suspect that if the coalition forces in Iraq before and Afghanistan/Pakistan attempted to keep tract of civilian deaths, they would be far more effective. Killing the people you are trying to save is not smart and the first step in trying to avoid it is knowing that you are doing it.

Not just that, you would also have to count the people who have died because of suicides(seeing your family ripped to shreds is rather hard), hunger/poverty, lack of medical treatment, etc.

@Centurion1: The comment on "Iraqi's are humans too" wasn't meant to imply that you didn't think of them as humans, of course.

As for you not believing it's 300k, well, that's just something we just don't know. But we know it's at least about 90k. And we know that a lot of deaths go unrecorded. Is it 100k extra? 200k? 300k? We don't know, and we are unlikely to ever know. But that's where the estimates are. Between just below 100k and above 300k have died. Just where that "between" is, isn't something we can figure out. But 300k is as likely, based on the facts we have, as 100k.

**CountArach** · 07-22-2009, 10:58

Iraq Body Count has it at roughly 100 000 recorded civilian casualty estimate. However, this is only RECORD deaths and as such the actual number is likely to be far higher. Other estimations, for instance had the casualty figures at 100 000 during 2004.

**CountArach** · 07-22-2009, 11:21

Originally Posted by CountArach

Iraq Body Count has it at roughly 100 000 recorded civilian casualty estimate. However, this is only RECORD deaths and as such the actual number is likely to be far higher. Other estimations, for instance had the casualty figures at 100 000 during 2004.

Found a few more sources for casualties. Here is a peer reviewed survey that estimates 151 000 before May 2006. In fact, just look at this wiki page.

**Fragony** · 07-22-2009, 13:13

Who's counting, perfectly possible that it are 300k by now. But so what really, would have happened at some point anyway. Terrible and all that but at least the country has a chance, I am not going to nod at the idea that they are worse of than they were previously. It's all there for them to screw up, they seem to be doing great at that so far.

**CountArach** · 07-22-2009, 14:05

Originally Posted by Fragony

Who's counting, perfectly possible that it are 300k by now. But so what really, would have happened at some point anyway. Terrible and all that but at least the country has a chance, I am not going to nod at the idea that they are worse of than they were previously. It's all there for them to screw up, they seem to be doing great at that so far.

Wait... what?

**Fragony** · 07-22-2009, 14:33

Originally Posted by CountArach

Wait... what?

They are kinda killing eachother, didn't you know

**Centurion1** · 07-22-2009, 14:35

I believe that fragony means that under the leadership of saddam Hussein in time he may have ended up killing 300k of his own people. I dont know if that would happen but he did kill many people.

hore Tore, I agree it is stupid to try to pin down a number. I may think they are less than 300k and you may believe they are more, it doesnt matter unless we know the truth. Oh and originally i thought you were talking about US casualties. My mistake

**Meneldil** · 07-22-2009, 14:40

Honestly, what's the whole point of this? Because one dude among millions writes a column titled "Thank You America', the invasion suddenly becomes a success?

Call it a godwin, but people thanked Nazi Germany when they invaded Europe. Then people thanked USSR when the red army 'freed' Europe. I'm pretty sure I could find dozens of newspapers from various countries with columns such as "Thank you Mr. Hitler".

My point obviously is not that USA = Nazi Germany or USSR, but rather that you'll always find people supporting foreign invaders, for a whole lot of reasons (sometimes good ones, sometimes bad ones. In this case, the guy obviously has a point).

Now, where are the 'many other Iraqis' who are glad the US invaded their country? Do you have any poll, any statistics? 'cause otherwise, I fear I'll keep thinking the invasion was and is an epic failure that created more harm than good.