Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Mass Destruction due to a war to find WMD

Dragonlich · 05-24-2003, 11:01 PM

First of all, you seem to be able to predict the future; that must be really helpful in things like lotteries. Are you already a millionaire? No? Then stop predicting an increase in terror, because you JUST CAN'T TELL. For every angry young Arab, there's ten happy Iraqis. For every civilian killed by the US/UK forces, there's thousands killed by Saddam.

Second, this survey is as biased as any other survey you can get your hands on - it's being done by "The Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC)"... Hmm, sounds decidedly anti-war to me.

Third, excessive civilian casualties were to be expected, with Saddam hiding his troops and irregulars in civilian areas. The fact that the Nasariyah - Najaf area was particularly hard hit is not that strange, seeing the days-long street-fighting we saw in that area. The coalition troops did what they had to do to win the war; they did not shoot civilians on purpose; they tried to minimize casualties, as can be seen by the *low* number of civilians killed...
If modern weapons were used indiscriminantly, you'd see a death toll in the hundreds of thousands, like during the Iran-Iraq war.

Fourth, cluster bombs... these are primarily used in open fields, against concentrations of enemy troops and armor. Without them, it would be nigh impossible to take these out. Human Rights Watch can say whatever they want about them; fact is that they are still needed, and therefore still used. Using them on civilians is wrong, but so is using any other weapon on them.

Finally... if the casualty rate is 5,000 to 10,000, I'd say it's pretty damn low, especially when one looks at the type of terrain (urban) and type of enemy (murderous bastards using civilians as human shields). During one incident in WW2, a Belgian town was mistakenly attacked by US bombers - more than 10,000 died in that single raid...

But of course, it would have been much better had the US not attacked - after all, then one wouldn't have 10,000 dead civilians during a two-week war, but hundreds of thousands of dead civilians in the next few years at the hands of Saddam. That seems to be a better solution, eh?

05-24-2003, 11:01 PM	#2 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	First of all, you seem to be able to predict the future; that must be really helpful in things like lotteries. Are you already a millionaire? No? Then stop predicting an increase in terror, because you JUST CAN'T TELL. For every angry young Arab, there's ten happy Iraqis. For every civilian killed by the US/UK forces, there's thousands killed by Saddam. Second, this survey is as biased as any other survey you can get your hands on - it's being done by "The Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict (CIVIC)"... Hmm, sounds decidedly anti-war to me. Third, excessive civilian casualties were to be expected, with Saddam hiding his troops and irregulars in civilian areas. The fact that the Nasariyah - Najaf area was particularly hard hit is not that strange, seeing the days-long street-fighting we saw in that area. The coalition troops did what they had to do to win the war; they did not shoot civilians on purpose; they tried to minimize casualties, as can be seen by the low number of civilians killed... If modern weapons were used indiscriminantly, you'd see a death toll in the hundreds of thousands, like during the Iran-Iraq war. Fourth, cluster bombs... these are primarily used in open fields, against concentrations of enemy troops and armor. Without them, it would be nigh impossible to take these out. Human Rights Watch can say whatever they want about them; fact is that they are still needed, and therefore still used. Using them on civilians is wrong, but so is using any other weapon on them. Finally... if the casualty rate is 5,000 to 10,000, I'd say it's pretty damn low, especially when one looks at the type of terrain (urban) and type of enemy (murderous bastards using civilians as human shields). During one incident in WW2, a Belgian town was mistakenly attacked by US bombers - more than 10,000 died in that single raid... But of course, it would have been much better had the US not attacked - after all, then one wouldn't have 10,000 dead civilians during a two-week war, but hundreds of thousands of dead civilians in the next few years at the hands of Saddam. That seems to be a better solution, eh? Last edited by Dragonlich; 05-24-2003 at 11:05 PM..