The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Sunday, August 23, 2026 21:35
VIEWED: 11894
PAGE 1 of 7
Shame on the USA. Shame on us all. 
More than 100,000 Iraqis have died - and where is our shame and rage?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1340562,00.html
Scott Ritter
· Scott Ritter was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998 and is the author of Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America
WSRitter@aol.com
Monday November 1, 2004
The Guardian
The full scale of the human cost already paid for the war on Iraq is only now becoming clear. Last week's estimate by investigators, using credible methodology, that more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians - most of them women and children - have died since the US-led invasion is a profound moral indictment of our countries. The US and British governments quickly moved to cast doubt on the Lancet medical journal findings, citing other studies. These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.
Civilian deaths have always been a tragic reality of modern war. But the conflict in Iraq was supposed to be different - US and British forces were dispatched to liberate the Iraqi people, not impose their own tyranny of violence.
Reading accounts of the US-led invasion, one is struck by the constant, almost casual, reference to civilian deaths. Soldiers and marines speak of destroying hundreds, if not thousands, of vehicles that turned out to be crammed with civilians. US marines acknowledged in the aftermath of the early, bloody battle for Nassiriya that their artillery and air power had pounded civilian areas in a blind effort to suppress insurgents thought to be holed up in the city. The infamous "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad produced hundreds of deaths, as did the 3rd Infantry Division's "Thunder Run", an armoured thrust in Baghdad that slaughtered everyone in its path.
It is true that, with only a few exceptions, civilians who died as a result of ground combat were not deliberately targeted, but were caught up in the machinery of modern warfare. But when the same claim is made about civilians killed in aerial attacks (the Lancet study estimates that most of civilian deaths were the result of air attacks), the comparison quickly falls apart. Helicopter engagements apart, most aerial bombardment is deliberate and pre-planned. US and British military officials like to brag about the accuracy of the "precision" munitions used in these strikes, claiming this makes the kind of modern warfare practised by the coalition in Iraq the most humanitarian in history.
But there is nothing humanitarian about explosives once they detonate near civilians, or about a bomb guided to the wrong target. Dozens of civilians were killed during the vain effort to eliminate Saddam Hussein with "pinpoint" air strikes, and hundreds have perished in the campaign to eliminate alleged terrorist targets in Falluja. A "smart bomb" is only as good as the data used to direct it. And the abysmal quality of the intelligence used has made the smartest of bombs just as dumb and indiscriminate as those, for example, dropped during the second world war.
The fact that most bombing missions in Iraq today are pre-planned, with targets allegedly carefully vetted, further indicts those who wage this war in the name of freedom. If these targets are so precise, then those selecting them cannot escape the fact that they are deliberately targeting innocent civilians at the same time as they seek to destroy their intended foe. Some would dismiss these civilians as "collateral damage". But we must keep in mind that the British and US governments made a deliberate decision to enter into a conflict of their choosing, not one that was thrust upon them. We invaded Iraq to free Iraqis from a dictator who, by some accounts, oversaw the killing of about 300,000 of his subjects - although no one has been able to verify more than a small
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
very sad
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OK, maybe no-one has actually said it, but the Administration's callousness seems to be an echo from thirty years ago. Is the new mantra going to be "We had to kill the Iraqis to liberate them"?
MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, but killing 100,000 people is OK because we're the good guys.
Quote:
These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.
Actually, the CPA stopped the Iraqi interim government from tracking civilians deaths.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
i don't really know enough about this topic to contribute anything useful, so i'll just contribute my extreme horror and sadness.
with everything that's going on, i'm seriously on the verge of tears right now.
~lissa, spwhore
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, but killing 100,000 people is OK because we're the good guys.
Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up.
We invaded Iraq, routed their Army, and removed Saddam Hussein from power.
Did you really expect we could do this without hurting anyone?
I suppose we could have issued our soldiers flowers and candy and seduced our way into Baghdad. Or we could have surrendered our way to victory like a certain European country seems to prefer.
Maybe 100,000 was to many. But with 1000 dead Americans in the balence, I'd say it wasn't enough. Sure thats a cruel statement, but with estimates putting insurgents at 10-20,000, I'd say we came in about 10-20,000 short.
And just for the record. The killing is not ok because we are the good guys. Its because we are the good guys that the killing is not ok. (wow, that damn right poetical).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Did you read the article? The vast majority of dead are women and children, and they were bombed (deliberately targeted using "smart bomb" technology). If you're willing to accept "collateral damage" of this magnitude, what makes you better than a terrorist? (Other than the fact that we're the "good guys".)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, but killing 100,000 people is OK because we're the good guys.
Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up.
We invaded Iraq, routed their Army, and removed Saddam Hussein from power.
Did you really expect we could do this without hurting anyone?
I suppose we could have issued our soldiers flowers and candy and seduced our way into Baghdad. Or we could have surrendered our way to victory like a certain European country seems to prefer.
Maybe 100,000 was to many. But with 1000 dead Americans in the balence, I'd say it wasn't enough. Sure thats a cruel statement, but with estimates putting insurgents at 10-20,000, I'd say we came in about 10-20,000 short.
And just for the record. The killing is not ok because we are the good guys. Its because we are the good guys that the killing is not ok. (wow, that damn right poetical).
H
its funny how people tend to view certain subjects with a narrow focus. sure civilians have died, regardless of the number - 1 death is a tragedy.
however, if 100,000 have died - think about this....how many would have died under saddam's reign in the coming months? if we had removed him the first time how many would still be alive?
Please remember the the media and political campaigns use spinmeisters to push news onto the public. Whether a conformist or idealist you must look beyond the black and white of todays media and think outside the box!
fox firefly playa-haters
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I would also submit that *without* the horror and human tragedies in war - when one day we can wage war and terror on each other without any actual physical death or harm. The cost of war - that is in real human trauma - will become absolutely acceptable and will be going on every single moment of our lives. We will be waging continual war on each other since it doesn't cost us anything.
As law as there are nasty people and evil around us, there will be war. No matter how nice "we" become and how much "we" want to rise above it all and how much "we" spent time on dealing in peace and talking it through - there will always be times when all of the maneuvering and hang-wringing will inevitably end up with human violence - simply because there will always be people who can barely climb out of the primordial soup and all they will ever understand is when their personal wealth and survival is threatened.
To say that we can completely abandon our willingness for human violence is to say...
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, but killing 100,000 people is OK because we're the good guys.
Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up.
We invaded Iraq, routed their Army, and removed Saddam Hussein from power.
Did you really expect we could do this without hurting anyone?
I suppose we could have issued our soldiers flowers and candy and seduced our way into Baghdad. Or we could have surrendered our way to victory like a certain European country seems to prefer.
Maybe 100,000 was to many. But with 1000 dead Americans in the balence, I'd say it wasn't enough. Sure thats a cruel statement, but with estimates putting insurgents at 10-20,000, I'd say we came in about 10-20,000 short.
And just for the record. The killing is not ok because we are the good guys. Its because we are the good guys that the killing is not ok. (wow, that damn right poetical).
H
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The CPA stopped the tracking b/c no matter which way and who they went to get the numbers, it was getting skewed. The hospitals were giving skewed numbers b/c the insurgents were harassing them and getting them to inflat the numbers. I'm sure there are other parties who might be interested in having lower numbers too.
A 3rd party like UN or humanitarian org should be doing it, but these damn fool insurgents keep killing them off.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh, but killing 100,000 people is OK because we're the good guys.Quote:
These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.
Actually, the CPA stopped the Iraqi interim government from tracking civilians deaths.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME