Why is it just that American troops killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians because of Husseins deeds?

Question

Hussein had a big mouth, for sure, and yes, following the Iran Iraq war, he gassed 1,500 Kurds, but, um, how DOES this make sense, help me understand this one...

The figure is in dispute, Bush has said an estimated 30,000 civilians died, the U.N., an estimated 50,000 civilians have died, Amnesty Int'l, an estimated 100,00 civilians have died.

Answer 1

Pretty standard answers rather than debate the Justice in this issue we debate body counts. A sad sad world.

Answer 2

Umm, where in the world did you understand Hussein only gassed 1,500 Kurds after the Iran/Iraq war?

His cousin, Chemical Ali, gassed over 100,000 Kurds total, not 1,500. By UN estimates alone, Saddam and his henchmen were directly responsible for almost 2 million deaths during his reign of terror during approx 20 years which includes the deaths in Iran and Kuwait from those wars. It also includes estimates of the killings by his secret police against ordinary Iraqi people as well against the others not of his favored tribe of birth. Notably in the south of Iraq, Shites I think.

I sincerely doubt the figure of 100,000 Iraqi citizens dead at the hands of American troops is accurate. Did the US troops kill lots of people? Yes. How many? No one will ever know but certainly we can say very many died at the hands of the US led troops. Heck, not only was it a war, but during the so called peace after the war (sort of) ended, there were different groups vying for power plus old hatreds exposed without Saddam's iron grip to keep tight reign on them. People died, but what of the people who lived that woudl have died should Saddam stayed in power? Yes, the US should not have gone in, but why do you not address the people who would have been killed by Saddam? He killed on average 100,000 people a year, by UN estimates too. Who cries for those poor souls? If you truly care for the Iraqi people killed, why not look at the entire picture and not just the ones killed by the US?

The US should not have gone in their, but hindsight is always 20/20. However, it serves no purpose to anyone to exaggerate about the amount dead for either side.

Only 1,500 dead under Hussein after the Iraq/Iran war? Are you only counting one mass murder when he killed millions? You are comparing only a few killed by Saddam against supposedly a hundred thousand killed by the US. Not a real comparison, obviously. Give me a break. Get real pal, get real.

Answer 3

PEACE NEGOTIATOR: From 2003 to 2006 (from memory) US troops killed 300,00 Iraqi people (civilians), because they were ordered to do it and our nation was at war via the President and his administration's directives.

Most Americans still do not know or understand why we are in this war. many have heard many things and they don't know what to believe. So, people are forming their own conclusions, based on what they have heard or remember.

In 1990-91, a long time ago, my company did the negotiation work and had successfully secured Saddam's withdrawal (surrender) from Kuwait, this is something that was never published by the newsmedia and it never being published allowed our nation, the Bush administration to go to war with Iraq (illegally)!

Saddam surrendered and the surrender WAS REFUSED by the Bush administration, so we could go to war. No WMD were ever found and the CIA had warned the Bush administration that if they took Saddam out such an action would destabilize the region, as we now see today. Due to the stubborness of the Bush administration, we are in a never ending war.

Peace could be had and the US troops can be immediately withdrawn, TODAY, but the Bush administration REFUSES because of their lies and fears that if they recant...They WILL BE indicted as war criminals for violations of the US Constitution on the basis of treason and high crimes against the Constitution and US.

US Congress and Nancy Pelosi are too stupid and too blind to see!

Have we wasted out time in Iraq negotiating with Saddam?

Max
peace negotiator
http://lchow.webvis.net/temp.html

Kenpo anyone?

.

Answer 4

I can’t really follow your question. Are you trying to justify the killing of 100,000 civilians by comparing this to 1,500 Kurds? Let’s back up a bit. The Butcher of Bagdad killed more then 1,500. He killed for years and continued to wipe out all opposition to his regime. Now if all you can account for over his entire rule was 1,500 then I think you have your head in the sand. None the less Sadam is dead and that is all over.

As far as Americans killing 100,000 civilians. That isn’t exactly right. There are and will be causalities of War. Some will even be civilians, but not 100,000. The insurgence hides among the civilians and uses women and children as shields. You make is sound like we are targeting the civilians, which is so far form the truth that I think you are dishonoring our military by even thinking it. We are liberating the people of Iraq and building a nation that can defend itself even in the Middle East. That takes time and resolve. If you want to believe we are just butchering people then you need to think again and possibly get your facts straight before you end up looking stupid online.

Answer 5

Your numbers are misleading. Many civilians have died as the result of enemy actions. While America and other coalition forces actions may result in the deaths to civilians it is not the intended result. Civilians die in armed conflicts no matter how careful you are. But do not forget that the enemy in this case often dresses in civilian attire. If his compatriots remove his weapon as they withdraw (not an uncommon practice) an enemy combatant could easily be mistaken for an innocent civilian. There are also unarmed people who are supporting enemy actions. They are also not innocent civilians but legitimate targets.

There is no accurate count only people with an agenda. On one hand to minimize on the other to exaggerate. This generates a great deal of heat but little light.

.

Answer 6

There is no doubt that some number of civilians have died and that SOME of those were innocent and that SOME of those innocents died at the hands of the U.S. But this fails to mention that, of those who have died, only a small percentage were killed by US or allied troops. The VAST majority were killed by Muslim extremists who crossed into Iraq, or those who acted under the orders of their imams, by Al Sadr's followers, by branches of Al Qaida, and by general civil war that erupted after the destruction of the Blue Mosque.

Answer 7

I'm not going to cling to any figures because they are all pretty inaccurate, but for the purpose of your argument we can agree that innocent civilians have died as a result of our actions.

The reasons for this are vast, but not any part of me believes it is intentional. If you have a house of people with AK47s, they'll call in air support and blow it up. Only later will they find out the bottom floor was a family of 5. They'll probably lump them with the insurgents when they publish a death toll. A sad state of affairs, but the alternative is to let them operate with impunity hiding amongst an innocent population. We cannot do that, it's become an us or them thing: people are going to have to die. If you had to choose to kill American soldiers or innocent Iraqis, what would you pick? I'd be inclined to spare the Americans, but I know my answer is not nice or preferred.

The difference between the US, Saddam and terrorists in general is that Saddam and terrorists deliberately attack the innocent, whereas in our case 99.999% of the time it is collateral damage.

Answer 8

What is a soldier but a civilian in uniform? And is not an 'insurgent' or a bomber a trouble-maker in civilian clothes?
Am I alone here in thinking that the price of freedom is blood, and that good government involves the supression of malcontents?
What did you think taking over a strange foreign country would involve, except extreme enforcement of law and order?
I refer you to the immortal words of JFK regarding heat and kitchens.

Answer 9

Much too much of an understatement and don't forget the millions who died because of the sanctions before that.

This all part of the Zionist/Nazi plan for destruction of the Middle East. If people can't see this by now......take look at how many leading neocons are dual US-Israeli nationals including Michael' Mossad' Chertoff and Richard "caught-spying-for-Israel-during- the-70s" Pearle. Their"A Clean Break:
A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" from 1996 couldn't make it more obvious.

Answer 10

First, it was ALOT more than "1500 kurds," and you know it.

Secondly, not all of those "100,000 Iraqi civilians" were actually "civilians," but since the enemy in Iraq doesn't wear uniforms, the media just assumes that anyone out of uniform is a "civilian" because it makes for better anti-war media sensationalism.

Why am I wasting my time? No matter what anyone says, you've made up your mind that you don't like the war enough that you're willing to manipulate and misrepresent statistics just to get a desired response.

It's just not worth it.