Iraqi civilian casualties mounting

[Zeebadee]

The only hearts and minds we are winning are those we are buying. Cash payments, new government jobs, reward money, all these will buy a little temporary loyalty, but that will quickly evaporate when the money flow stops. The enemies we are making, however, are going to be lifelong ones.

[RickSp]

If the technology is sophisticated enough, the civilian casualties are minimal to none.

I think you misunderstand the nature of guerrilla war. Fighting in cities negates all the US technolgy. The guerrillas don't stand in an open field, wear uniforms or fight in formation. They fight in cities where lots of civilians live. If you use firepower to kil the guerillas you kill many more civilians, and the more civilians that we kill the more support the guerillas can rely on. There is no "smart bullet" that only kills the bad guys in a crowd.

It is a battle of the weak against the strong and in this case the weak can win as long they are willing to keep fighting. They have a very basic reason to fight. An infidel invader is occupying and destroying their country.

Zeebadee is exactly right, we are creating a nation of lifelong enemies in Iraq.

[Dieval]

Originally posted by Zeebadee, "The Americans do not care about the Iraqis. They don't care if they get killed, because they don't care about the citizens," said Abu Mohammed, 50, who was a major general in Saddam Hussein's army in Baghdad. "The Americans keep criticizing Saddam for the mass graves. How many graves are the Americans making in Iraq?"

Doesn't anyone find it rather hypocritical that a former Saddam major general(or is that a major General?) is criticizing us?? Hello?? Does anyone even find that acceptable??

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Sonart, the war was started by mistake and completely unnecessary.

I do not think there was any mistake to strike Iraq. It was done on a purpose.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by bishop, your comments have nothing to do with how iraqis perceive deaths caused by our actions. your comments about military technology are completely irrelavent in that regard. the current civilian casualties are very significant, not minimal to none. if we don't win hearts and minds (which is influenced by massive civilian casualties), then the mission in iraq will fail.

#1
A technology and military equipement is a significant factor, to minimize civilian caualties during war events.
The thread's title is about Iraqi civilian casualties.
#2
I do not think that U.S.-led military forces go out to hunt for Iraqi civilians.
#3
Since when Arabs have been percieving U.S. positively, at all ?

People may change their views on matters around them, but it takes time and efforts to meet their expectations.

The world we live does not comply with our wills, wishes, desires, ect. always. Very often, it is completely all the way around. Sometimes, it is very harsh and tragic.

[Samildanach]

Not really, he is allowed to criticise surely, he was/is part of the military so is probably more qualified than most to comment.
Besides which his observation seems to be quite borne out IMO. Its pretty much all about Bush looking good for the election at the moment, which means more airstrikes, less American troop deaths and more Iraqi deaths as a consequence. Also you can see them pushing for an election in the news to make bush look good, which again is just plain ridiculous, how can you have an election when half the country is at war. It invalidates it completely because half the population won't participate.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by RickSp, I think you misunderstand the nature of guerrilla war. we are creating a nation of lifelong enemies in Iraq.

#1
No.
U.S.-led coalition military forces use the means they have in their possession, while a technology is a significant factor.

I do not think that during a military conflicts a soldier is going to pay much of his attention to separate civilians to the "left" and fight combatants on the "right". It is not possible a soldier to comply with that order, especially while bullets, grenades, ect. are hitting and exploding around him.

Give soldiers laser-based weapons, and civilian casualties are going to be minimal to none. There is NO such technology, as of yet.
Few months ago, Pentagon expressed its great interest in new technology (under a developement, right now) that may be used in Iraq. That is the new laser-based technology, designated for many purposees that aims at eliminating selective targets.

[bishop]

you're as thick as a brick wall rainbow.. i notice that you have decided to avoid the point that i've been repeatedly addressed to you.

maybe you're just slow.. so here's a different angle, why would this iraqi say what he said?

"Anyone who hates America has come here to fight: Saddam's supporters, people who don't have jobs, other Arab fighters. All these people are on our streets," said Hamed, the ministry official. "But everyone is afraid of the Americans, not the fighters. And they should be."

be sure to respond in proper I. II. III. outline format, mmmkay?

0=====8
*;-->------<

[Sonart]

I do not think there was any mistake to strike Iraq. It was done on a purpose.

It may have been done on purpose, Rainbow, but George Bush and Colin Powell stood before the American people and the United Nations and declared that we must attack Iraq because of their threat of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

--"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."--- George W. Bush, address to the U.S., March 17, 2003

--"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."-- - George W. Bush, address to U.S., March 19, 2003

Yet, having occupied Iraq and searched high and low, we have yet to find any evidence whatsoever of the existance of such weapons. You don't call that a mistake?

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by bishop, you're as thick as a brick wall rainbow..  i notice that you have decided to avoid the point that i've been repeatedly addressed to you. maybe you're just slow..  so here's a different angle, why would this iraqi say what he said?

"Anyone who hates America has come here to fight: Saddam's supporters, people who don't have jobs, other Arab fighters. All these people are on our streets," said Hamed, the ministry official. "But everyone is afraid of the Americans, not the fighters. And they should be."

#1
Nope. I am not that thick :-)))
I have already answered to the issues you raised.
#2
I am not UFO-related :-)))
Do you want me to comment what Iraqi say, or what you say ?
"Hamed"s (ministry official) view is exactly the answer I posted question to :
Since when Arabs have been perceiving U.S. positively ?
(That question is the answer to the issue you raised, as well)

P.S.
Why are you questioning my way of expressing my thoughts within my posts or replies ?

[Rainbow]

double post

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Sonart, It may have been done on purpose, Rainbow, but George Bush and Colin Powell stood before the American people and the United Nations and declared that we must attack Iraq because of their threat of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Yet, having occupied Iraq and searched high and low, we have yet to find any evidence whatsoever of the existance of such weapons. You don't call that a mistake?

It is true. They did say that. It was a part of the "whole package".
U.S. government based its determinations to attack Iraq on the following bases :
- business companies from some countries (50 U.S. companies, alone) had provided Saddam with all the materials needed to create WMD.

Then, U.S. government assumed that Saddam had to created "something".
- what happened to all those materials ?
- did Saddam make any WMD ? if "yes", then what happened to it ?
They wanted to check all that stuff. Saddam declined access, and played a "cat-mouse" game. He just swallowed that "bait" about WMD, and the rest was complying with U.N. Resolution #1441, and bringing that "whole package" along.

If Saddam did not play, there is no war today. Instead, he wanted to show how "strong" he was in Middle-East region, (at least), and he lost.

[Zeebadee]

Originally posted by Rainbow, Saddam declined access, and played a "cat-mouse" game.

Could you please post a link to, or provide some support of such a statement? Where in the years since 9/11 have the UN inspectors been denied access to any place they wanted to search?


Edited for grammar.

[Sonart]

If Saddam did not play, there is no war today. Instead, he wanted to show how "strong" he was in Middle-East region, (at least), and he lost.

Oh goody, Saddam Lost. And look where we are now because of it. Losing this war will be catastrophic for the U.S. and so far, we're definitely not winning. And what's worse, our own intelligence analysts told Bush this is what would happen.

All because Saddam stuck his tongue out at us?

Then, U.S. government assumed that Saddam had to created "something". - what happened to all those materials ?

What happened indeed!? Apparently we were simply wrong --- mistaken. Guess that's what happens when you base your intelligence on the word of an Iranian spy.

I would think that in itself is an impeachable case of criminal negligence.

[giuliano]

Originally posted by Rainbow, If Saddam did not play, there is no war today. Instead, he wanted to show how "strong" he was in Middle-East region, (at least), and he lost.

if he lost, then i'm trying to work out who won?

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Zeebadee,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Zeebadee,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Rainbow, Saddam declined access, and played a "cat-mouse" game.

Could you please post a link to, or provide some support of such a statement? Where in the years since 9/11 have the UN inspectors been denied access to any place they wanted to search?[/b][/quote]

What link ?
Go to "U.N." web sites and read all the resolutions, with concern to Iraq.
Saddam was to comply with all the U.N. Resolutions, unconditionally. He failed to do so.
He was even breaking previous U.N. Resolutions.

[RickSp]

Go to "U.N." web sites and read all the resolutions, with concern to Iraq. Saddam was to comply with all the U.N. Resolutions, unconditionally. He failed to do so. He was even breaking previous U.N. Resolutions.

Which is, I suppose, the reason we keep invading and occupying Israel. And hey, they definately have WMD and we paid for it.

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Sonart,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sonart,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Losing this war will be catastrophic for the U.S. and so far, we're definitely not winning. <!--QuoteBegin-Rainbow Then, U.S. government assumed that Saddam had to created "something". - what happened to all those materials ?

What happened indeed!? Apparently we were simply wrong --- mistaken. Guess that's what happens when you base your intelligence on the word of an Iranian spy.

I would think that in itself is an impeachable case of criminal negligence.[/b][/quote]

#1
Yes, if U.S. loses in Iraq, it would bring "negative consequences".
Partitioning Iraq would be "the best option", then, in case everything f*** up.
#2
Why are we wrong ? Because some people can not figure out what really happened to all the materials (Saddam was in a possession) to create WMD ?
If U.S. intelligence agencies failed, then U.S. intelligence agencies should have been re-structured since the first day-after 09/11.
It did not happen, and I am very skeptical that it will, ever.
#3
Criminal negligence ?
The are following factors are on stake in the Middle-East region (right now) :
- markets (economy and finance)
- oil (energy)
- intelligence and military bases
The first point, (it) provides you and your children with business opportunities.
The second point, (it) makes sure prices do not go up, (and it concerns you and your children, as well)
The third point, (it) secures your and your children ass.

All these points are extremely vital and have an impact on our life (today), and our children (tomorrow). That is the reality of life.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Rainbow, Could you please post a link to, or provide some support of such a statement? Where in the years since 9/11 have the UN inspectors been denied access to any place they wanted to search?

What link ?
Go to "U.N." web sites and read all the resolutions, with concern to Iraq.
Saddam was to comply with all the U.N. Resolutions, unconditionally. He failed to do so.
He was even breaking previous U.N. Resolutions.[/quote]

Ah, yes, the UN Resolutions. We all know how much stock you put in such resolutions and how you would like to see them enforced. As long as you agree with them, of course. If you don't like them, violations aren't important. I'm sure you won't check out this link, because your mind is simply closed to anything that opposes your point of view. I'll post it anyway, just in case someone else might want to check it out:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=200...0021028&s=zunes

[Rainbow]

Originally posted by Zeebadee, I'm sure you won't check out this link, because your mind is simply closed to anything that opposes your point of view.

No one must agree with any point of view. Everybody has its own one.

P.S.
Keep your opinion on my person into your *** . PM serves for that purpose, instead. I can "portray" your characteristics, as well. It does not cost much. Read "Volcanvo" rules and regulations, first.