Is it safe to assume you can use the Body Count in War to estimate the winners and losers???

Question

Like In Iraq

Since more women and children have died in Iraq than any other demographic. Is it safe to assume they lost in the war against Women and Children

Answer 1

Everyone has lost, and is still losing.

The war is the worst INVASION that the US has been involved in this century.

I have twins (son Navy/daughter Air Force) so I have EXTREMELY strong feelings about the disaster.

Answer 2

Clearly, but you are focusing on a category that creates a sense of failure on our part. Terrorists focus on innocent people. They win through fear and intimidation of the populous. That is the intent of terorists, not American soldiers. Had we had an objective media that focused upon facts and relayed information to the public that reflected what was happening to both sides. The American public would have a different perspective of the war. Our information would not be limited to the number of American soldiers killed, but would also show numbers of insurgents. But, God forbid we give any sense of success. Now, we have fewer car bombs, and suicide bombers. The truth is leaking through the liberal media fog and can not be held back much longer as our successes will be too much to hold back.

Public opinion must turn in the light of truth.

Answer 3

Why don't you talk about how many women and children are killed every day by the insurgents or how many were slaughtered by Saddam? Or how about the fact that if the insurgents stopped using schools and apartment buildings as cover, or if they stopped placing car bombs "near" police stations on crowded streets and such, the number of dead civilians would be incredibly lower? And you imply that we are targeting civilians, which is either naive of you or just plain stupid. By definition, terrorists target civilians, our boys only respond to attacks and sometimes, regrettably, civilians get caught in the crossfire.

Answer 4

Body count has nothing to do with victory in a war. See Vietnam, and Russia in both World Wars

Answer 5

Removing Saddam saved Iraqi lives. While Saddam starved to death children, he spent billions of dollars on palaces that included gold faucets. And instead of using plumbing equipment to purify water, he made lakes and waterfalls for himself.

1996:
"It is estimated that 500,000 Iraqi children have died because of the non-compliance of the Iraqi Government with [United Nations] Security Council resolutions 706 (1991), 712 (1991) and 986 (1995) since the end of the Gulf War. "
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/51/plenary/a51-496.htm
(UN website)

4 months before the opening attack on Saddam (November 2002)
"Despite improvements there are still close to one million children under the age of five suffering from chronic malnutrition in Iraq today - that's nearly a quarter of all children of that age," said Mr. Carel de Rooy, the head of UNICEF in Iraq. "This is unacceptable. More still needs to be done to end the suffering of a generation of children."
http://www.unicef.org/newsline/02pr63iraq.htm

Only the United Nations [UN] can put United Nations sactions on a country.

Answer 6

that was the logic in Vietnam until the soldiers started gaming the system and shooting civilians to meet their quotas.