How many civilian deaths in Iraq is "too much"??

Question

So far, the estimates range from 58,000 to 64,000.

What's the cutoff? 250,000? 500,000? When do we say "enough is enough"?

okay, let me clarify. Don't answer this question unless you support the decision to have a military presence in Iraq.

I'm seeing alot of answers, but no numbers.......

So there is no number? As long as the job gets done, who cares how many innocent people die, right?

Answer 1

When the death rate from violence starts to approach what it was under the Saddam regime, that would be too much. That would be a tangible marker that things have gotten worse under U.S. occupation.

Answer 2

Those estimates are in the ball-park, but you have to ask the more important question: Who's killing them? HINT: It's NOT our soldiers. The civilians that are being killed are dying at the hands of factional fighting. Since the war began, less than 1,000 civilian deaths can be attributed to U.S. Armed Forces involvement, and that includes civilians that are killed as "collateral damage" when U.S. soldiers are killed. Now, don't get me wrong -- I don't like the idea of innocent Iraqis getting killed any more than you do -- but what are we supposed to do? Declare martial law? Set curfews? Search everyone and execute anyone carrying explosives or firearms or any other type of weapon? You also need to realize that the civilian death toll would be much higher if our troops were not there to keep the factional fighting in check. To answer your question: Too many Iraqi civilians have died already, but the blame does not lie at the feet of our President or our military. They're killing their own, and it would only get worse if we pull out now, so which is the lesser of two evils? Staying or leaving?

Answer 3

that's without doubt one in all the procedures of the antiwar time table types. they won't be able to exact equate the generic public death toll to the certainly reason because of the fact it would not benefit that reason. to be sure that the rabid antiwar flow to prevail united statesa. could desire to be made to look like an evil aggressor in all issues. This replaced into the approach they used effectively for the time of Vietnam and it rather is the comparable time table they are pursuing on the instant. a minimum of the positioning you stumbled on seems to have a perfect extensive form, lots of those human beings declare 5 and six circumstances that form of deaths and lay it on the ft of united statesa.. i'm no longer against human beings actual expressing dissent against the war even while i do no longer consider them, yet there is not any longer something elementary approximately a majority of those claims. perfect suggestion is to forget approximately it as ineffective one sided rhetoric.

Answer 4

What concern is that of yours? None. Civilians die in every war since time began. Soldiers die in every war since time began. Things get blown up in every war since time began. That's the way it goes. You cannot sit back and leave tyranny and evil take over unopposed because your afraid some citizens or soldiers might die, that's insanity. Think about it....

Answer 5

Was the same question asked of Washington? FDR? Of Truman? Of LBJ? Of Nixon? Of Clinton? Of any Prez who led us into war? It's not pretty, but it's a fact of life in war.

Answer 6

1.

Answer 7

If we pull out now...the death toll will be worse than 250-500,000...i.e. multi regional war...iran, turkey, syria...We are in it till the end or it will be just the bloody beginning of the killing..

Answer 8

When the last muzzie terrorist is killed. That will end the "civilian" deaths....it is that scum that kills 99% of the people..not the soldiers...oh thats right you Muzzie supporter..you call them freedom fighters...I call them targets...

Answer 9

As long as Dubya's friends are making money hand over fist, then any number of 'collateral damages' both on the iraqi side, and in our own military are acceptable to them.

In my opinion - one is too many.

Answer 10

One