Sander said:
Arr0nax said:
Because of the fucking body count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
That's how you measure how fucked up an uncalled for war is. And how important every single death is.
So how does that body count measure up to other wars? How are the situations comparable or incomparable?
Oh yeah, I see where you are going. Every war is different, so we can't compare anything, and are bound to say amen and smile, right ?
Like I said, I'm getting pissed off this relativist bullshit.
30 000 civillians is 30 000 civillians, and it's fucking mass murder.
Amounting to this result just because you decided to make a little excursion in some random part of the world where you thought some WMD were lying around is fucking innacceptable. In this context, every single civillian death should be mediatized, and every soldier involved in this shit heavily insulted.
If you know of any similar war being fought by UN/NATO with such alarming figures, feel free to denounce them. In case you can't, I weel be forced to assume the US are the only one in the occidental developped countries to commit to such mass-idiocy
Sander said:
Okay, you need to understand a couple of things. First, a group of people who obviously belong with eachother and walk around seemingly with weapons in open view is different from just two people with weapons. This is a tough situation, yes, but if soldiers see a threat, they're supposed to stop that threat. And you cannot allow those troops to be stopped because maybe not all of those people are armed. Those people are associating with hostile targets.
Second, they did not just start shooting at random. They had been shot at previously, so they were on alert. They saw people walking with what seemed to be weapons. They then contacted their superiors for permission to open fire, and did not fire until they got that permissions. The same thing happened with the van.
This isn't the 'Oh hey civilians let's shoot them' incident you seem to want to make of it.
But what is a threat ? If every armed person is a threat, be they shooting at you or not, and since every armed person in a fucking city is surrounded by ten unarmed civillians, then by airstriking there you're committing yourself to mass murdering civillians.
Second, we're a little mixing up things here. There are two problems, one with the soldier himself, the second with the ROE. If the ROE are too allowing, then whatever the situation may be, shit will happen. This is our first problem, and I don't see how you should be allowed to shoot shrapnel in a 30 foot radius around an armed target whitout being under direct threat, which wasn't the case.
The second problem is that the soldier can basically invent whatever please him, and see weapons where there are only cameras. We still have no fucking clue if there was any weapon involved here.
Shoveler said:
Wait a sec Arronax,
That link you provided didn't say US killed 100k Iraqis. It said that 100k civilians have died. Thousands upon thousands were killed by a variety of things. Suicide bombers, legitimate crossfire and a Civil war that lasted a couple years. Hell the Iranians are providing most of the IEDs, how many deaths are they attributed with? Pretty much zero, your data is flawed at the core. The real number is probably 200-300k anyway, figures like this tend to be low. Most of which is not at the hands of the US directly.
Hum... From the BodyCount source, the article states :
Iraq Body Count 94,902 – 103,549
[...]
The report says the US and its allies were responsible for the largest share (37%)
Which make the US civillian kills a mere 37 000....
) like a baby seal, but would never steep to the level of intelligence and lack of empathy shown in that video.