if 2.5% of Iraq population is affect....

[Neil D]

2.5% of Iraq population is dead

....how is the country gonna feel about the US?

Should they be ....

1] elated that we freed them from the likes of Saddam Hussain?

2] morn over thier dead and move on but be glad of their new freedoms?

3] be resentful that the death toll is so high?

4] Oh, well, that war for you. It has a high rate of casualtys..

5] Be upset that the US has caused the death of thier friends and familys and do something about this US 'invasion' [or liberation]

Please tell us why you think this way...

[Dr. Shane]

Since 70% of the civilians killed have been killed by terrorist or insurgant groups and the US is overthere trying to kill the terrorists and insurgants, doesn't that put a little different spin on things?

[Bravus]

Um, but they wouldn't have been killed by terrorists and insurgents if the US had stayed out. The figure Neil is quoting is for 'excess deaths' above what would have been expected under normal circumstances. It was basically the US 'fight them over there so we don;t have to fight them here' policy that turned Iraq into the killing ground it is today.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

they wouldn't have been killed by terrorists and insurgents if the US had stayed out.

It isn't quite that simple.

We have two wars. The first was between the US and Saddam. Now we can debate that war and whether it was justified or not. The US gained a quick victory. Saddam's government fell and he was captured a short time later.

Then we have the insurgency. That is between the US with the new Iraqi government and the insurgents. So we have two new players in this war.

One can say, "the US should have stayed out" but shouldn't they also admit, "the terrorists should have stayed out"? Many of these insurgants are forgien fighters, not even Iraqis themselves. And the funding for the insurgancy is coming from outside of Iraq. If the insurgents would let the new government gain control, the US would leave all that much faster.

So if we are going to argue that the US shouldn't have entered into Iraq, we must also argue that the insurgants shouldn't have entered either. The insurgants are not freedom fighters trying to get rid of an occupying force. They attack and kill Iraqi policemen and military. They kill Iraqi politicians. Which is all counterproductive because if they really want the US out of Iraq the way to make that happen is to help the new government become established - not fight against it.

[bevin]

Quote:

Since 70% of the civilians killed have been killed by terrorist or insurgant groups and the US is overthere trying to kill the terrorists and insurgants, doesn't that put a little different spin on things?

The Bush administration drops these labels on anyone that doesn't do what they want them to do

Iraq is now in a civil war, it is NOT a case of 'terrorists' or 'insurgents'.

Just because Bush et al want a particular group of people or style of rule does not automatically make the Iraqi's peoples choices 'terorists' - any more than it makes Democrats terrorists.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Here is one article talking about the study.

'Huge rise' in Iraqi death tolls

The study was done by Johns Hopkins and is not even credible. It is not something the Bush Adminsitration is pedeling. Believe it or not, not everything can be blamed on Bush.

My point is IF it is to be believed, only 31% of causualties are due to coalition forces. I have not seen any numbers from other studies regarding the percentage of causualties due to terrorists.

[Bravus]

The study *is* scientifically credible, though by no means certain. The detailed reports of the papers said the 95% confidence level was between 300,000 (and something, being specific) and 900,000. Even at the lowest end of that, or below it, it's 1% of the country's population: the equivalent of 3 million Americans.

I understand your point, Shane, but you seem to be missing or suppressing mine. Irrespective of who actually killed them, if the Americans (oops, sorry, 'Coalition of the Willing' - we Aussies need to shoulder our share of the responsibility) hadn't gone in, the vast majority of these people would still be alive.

[Dr. Shane]

But that is because Saddam ruled with an iron fist. If the US-led forces ran things like Saddam did, there wouldn't be nearly as many causualties either. Ultimately it comes back to the terrorists.

What the US did was honorable. The US went into Iraq to take out a dictator that was a precieved threat. That is honorable.

The US than began to set up a new, democratic government with the goal of withdrawling its troops once the government had control of the country. Again, that is honoable.

The terrorists have responded not only by attacking US troops but by attacking Iraqi civilians. The reason the death toll of civilians is so high is because the terrorists have been targetting them. That can't be left out of the equation.