Fallujah in Pictures

Yes but that was spread over 30 years of rule. If the 100,000 mark is to be believed that is one 7th of the people in one 30th of the time.

Those that aren't old enough to buy a beer enlisted after 9/11. They knew full well what they were signing up for. They were well aware they would be going into harm's way. Keep that in mind.

The age issue is irrelevant for the marines mentioned. People join the USMC to fight. Join the Army learn a trade. Join the Navy see the world. Join the Marines first to fight.

I always look at these pictures. Just to remind myself not to be too anxious. It is my sincere regret that my health prevents me from enlisting and willfully subjecting myself to the same dangers that I advocate sending our serviceman to face. I have been looking at alternatives up to and including civilian demining. the State dept has an office devoted training people for EOD work. If accepted I estimate that I can get trained and go on at least one excursion by Dec 05. I'm mulling it over

After the invasion of Normandy (D-Day), TIME magazine published a series of photos as that a photo journalist took while the invasion went on. In this series of photo's there was a photo of three (I think, maybe two) dead US soldiers on the beach. The tide had come in, and covered parts of their bodies. Their humanity, and individuality were still visible, but their loss, and their place in the overall image of the war were also visible.

And, of course there was an uproar. And the American people were upset, the soldiers were mad, and so on.

That image, taken during a war that some would say was the most justifiable act of aggression by this country in the 20th century, is PART OF OUR HISTORY! It honors those soldiers lives, while still showing the futility of war. It shows the humanity, and the inhumanity in one shot. It reflects what war is!

If we aren't allowed to see these images, how will we define the history of this event? If these images aren't published, how will we make up our own minds? If these images come out later, to future generations, how will we explain our acceptance of such a bloody, un-acceptable war?

To the soldiers:

In WW2 the isolationist elements of this society did not agree with the engagement. Believe it or not, there was an Anti-War movement then too. Journalism was limited then too, and it was only until after the wars completion that people were able to put two, and two together to see if the war was justified.

The same goes for right now. So if you truelly feel that you are over there to "bring freedom to the masses", only time will tell if you accomplish your goal, or not. Be patient.

i can't seem to find any reliable numbers. evidently, this is a point of some great contention. the closest i could get was around 300,000. where did you get 1.5 mil?

unless you're counting deaths fromt he Iran-Iraq war, which is disingenuous to say the least, as we were helping at the time...

[Edited on Nov 18, 2004 by rottenart]

They have some kurd stats out there as well. The 1.5 is probably with the Iran Iraq thing. Which is basicly the same issue as us in their. I have some big issues about the 100,000 numbers and how people came to that conclusion. Much of it is pure specualtion. Im not saying the number is wrong, but hell if there were that many bodies out there I think there would be more proof then guesses based on a few conflicts. Maybe the number is actually higher. I personally cant see it and no one is counting Iraqi bodies beyond major conflicts.

Also on another note just because your not 21 doesnt mean these guys werent drinking there brains out. Its a unwritten rule in the military to have liver problems at 21.

1.5 million of his own people? Please do check...that sounds high.

And in fact it is...I believe that you are counting Iranians killed during the war, among others.

[Edited on Nov 18, 2004 by Vestril]

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam murdered 290,000 Iraqis, plus 100,000 Kurds during the 1988 war with Iran. That makes a total of roughly 400,000 dead. As far as I know, no conservative supporter of the war has accused Saddam of higher numbers than that.

Now the comparison.

For the sake of kindness to Bush, we'll leave out the Iraqi soldiers we killed during the invasion, as well as members of the Iraqi resistance. We'll even leave out those who died in US custody. We'll just count the Lancet's 100,000 civilians.

Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq for 35 years. He killed 400,000 people during that time. That equals a little over 10,000 Iraqis per year. George W. Bush, in just a year, killed 100,000 people.

George W. Bush kills Iraqis at ten times the rate of Saddam Hussein.


i got that from sat nov 6 tedrall blog

Why does it matter? Although these kids would always be powerless with respect to the direction of their lives, they would be playing in the streets if the U.S. didn't invade Iraq. Now, they are powerless AND missing an arm or a leg AND there is absolutely no evidence things will get better.

When I see images like these, I ask myself, "do the overall benefits of this war outweigh the costs I observe in these pictures?" And the overwhelming answer to this question is "no". One can argue whether you have to be there to make a judgement, whether the good news is being underreported, whether these pictures are being used to make a political point, etc.. but these kinds of debates are just distractions. Yes, I don't know the story firsthand. Yes, I hear about every casualty but not about every single piece of good news. Yes, these pictures are posted to make a political point. But.. goddamn.. I think this political point is an obvious one: the benefits of this war (if any) do not justify the suffering documented in these photos. At this point in the war, it takes a fair amount of self-deception to believe otherwise.

I tend to think that the 100,000 number is a bit overblown, I think that this is a bit more accurate.

*looks at fingers* *counts out loud*
eh still more then saddam!

That estiment bothers me. They use to estimate via rough guesses by many news servieces. Then put a timer on the body count and just let it run. I assume they have since changed that but I still dont see a number count of true accuarcy.

If your going to quote me by the way please look at my post stating that number is probably really wrong.

There is no accurate body count because they (US occupiers and then the Iraqi puppet govt) has forbidden hospitals from releasing such information or cooperating with anyone who tries to count. Before this there was a native Iraqi effort to produce accurate statistics by going to the hospitals, but they did not get to continue. The US military never count deaths on the other side.

So while we have to guess, we can assume that the number is quite high, since they don't want us to know.

Okay. So far I have noted that 15 threads have been started that were exactly the same as posts I made in some other thread. Perhaps I should just start threads from now on?

Thanks for sharing. You would probably like this site... http://www.oldamericancentury.com/

If you scroll down and look at the all of the links to articles you can find some great info.

We either fight there or fight here, maybe the press would pay attention to that.

*note to self- disregard every post mr. chickenhawk makes about the military from here on out.*

...even 100,000 is less than 400,000, though if you were counting with your fingers I can see why you might get that wrong, there is a great deal of room for error there. Wait, maybe you meant that Bush topped the 10+ thousand per year figure? Well...actually Saddam wasn't killing 10,000 people each year-most of the murders occured before the first invasion of Iraq which would indicate that Saddam was killing far more people per year then than the US military is now. He just stopped after a while...and shortly thereafter the US beat the hell out of his army and then went back home.

This argument doesn't exactly support the US's current position on Iraq, of course, but then I neither do I.

Yea dude, thats it.

And did you hear on Fox, we're invading Iran because they found out that they have been storing Hitler's brain, and are planning on implanting it into a robot, with nuclear missle hands!

Yea dude, thats it.

And did you hear on Fox, we're invading Iran because they found out that they have been storing Hitler's brain, and are planning on implanting it into a robot, with nuclear missle hands!

It's possible. Here's the proof of Iraqi Super-soldier programs...



[Edited on Nov 18, 2004 by desperatecomfort]

god help us all.

I wouldn't if I were you. Those are confirmed kills and not estimates.

There is no way that every civilian death has been confirmed by two separate news sources. Not in any war much less this one. Hell...we can't even get the murder rate of Detroit that well confirmed!

read more here

how exactly was that going to happen? would we provide the transportation for the iraqi army to get here?

true enough, but it seems like all the media shows is death and despair. they only vary in how graphic it is. if all future generations see are these phots, how will we explain our acceptance? if history shows that it was the right thing in the long run, what will future generations think of us for only looking in the dark side? my problem is the whole media concept of "if it bleeds, it leads"