Iraqi deaths?

Question

Why do opponents of the liberation of Iraq always assume all deaths in Iraq are the fault of the US. Aren't they the fault of the militias and terrorists?

Answer 1

To all those who think that Iraq would be a more stable place, and more Iraqi's would be alive today if the US didn't invade, think about it for a second.

Yes, Iraq would be more stable to the outside world, just as Cuba and China appear stable, or the old Soviet Union was stable....or better yet, Germany under Hitler was stable too. Stability is not necesarily the best for a nations people, it can mean the dictator is ruling by fear and intimidation.

As for more people being alive, we might never know the number of those murdered under Saddam's regime to maintain that stability. I talked to a great man, a surgeon who was part of a team exhuming mass graves pre-invasion in Iraq, and who is feeling the effects of the nerve toxins used to kill those Iraqis. We knew that Saddam was staying in power using terror on his own people, the UN couldn't stop him using embargoes (that lead to corruption), and the world kept turning their backs to the problem hoping it would work itself out. This is the same world theory that caused WWII, and the same world theory that lead us into the current Iraq war.

So if you are fine with allowing dictators running stable governments by using fear, intimidation, terror and murder on itheir own people, then yes, the US did not need to invade Iraq.

Answer 2

Tom, Tom. Daaaaaa, If we did not invade Iraq would over 300,000 civilians be dead there now? We need to end that occupation. Tom, One other thing you should thaink about. How do you tell a "terrorist" from a Iraqi civilian when they are dead? When our service members shoot a "terrorist" or "militias" in Iraq do they have a mark on the forehead? Do C-130 attack ships kill only "terrorist"?

Answer 3

No one who takes an objective look at Iraq assumes anything - that would be small-minded.

Why do you assume the liberation of Iraq is the goal of the US action there?

Answer 4

If what you describe Iraq to be is Liberation, then I ask that you send me to the pen... at least I will be clothe, fed and kept relatively safe.

I am amazed at the lack of honesty by people who pose questions like this. Is it not the case that Iraq would be a much more stable place if we hadn't interfered in their country?

Answer 5

More than 34,000 civilians were killed in Iraq in 2006, according to United Nations figures released today which are nearly three times higher than the number reported dead by the Iraqi Government.

Your right, who knows who did it!

Answer 6

None of these deaths would have happened if we never invaded Iraq in the first place. Pre-war Iraq not to much terrorism. Post war Iraq terrorism everyday thanks to support by Iran and Syria helping terrorists.

Answer 7

it's everybody's fault (everybody tied up in this current nonsense, i mean).
of course, terrorists are to blame for most of the civilian casualties, but this has been going on for years and years.
we are correct in blaming the US government for our US military casualties, our soldiers have no business being there- they're being slaughtered for no good reason.
why worry about iraq? let's liberate the usa.

Answer 8

If Bush had not launched his lie-based war that is now an unwinnable quagmire (thanks to his total failure to follow the advice of his generals) Iraq would not now be in a civil war. Over 600,000 people would still be alive and millions more would not now be wounded andor have their lives shattered forever.

Iraq is a hell hole, and it is a direct consequence of the actions of Bush and the Republicans.

Answer 9

Because the Iraqi people believe them.

Answer 10

In 2006 34,000 Iraqi civilians managed to lose their lives. It wasn't the US that killed these people.