Almost 10,000 civilian deaths in Iraq?

[seriousart]

Was curious about the number of innocents killed in Iraq during our occupation, so far.
The military doesn't have any reason to keep tally, let alone publish any civilain death stats, so a certain amount of speculation is required on behalf of the media, I presume.
After some digging around I came across this site (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm) which has a breakdown of various media sources and the dates and numbers of civilians they claimed where killed. They estimate somewhere between 8100 and 9938 killed. I also found this cite (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0522/p01s02-woiq.html) which claimed back in May somewhere between 5 and 10 thousand deaths. USA TODAY (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-06-11-iraqi-toll_x.htm) claimed back in June some 3,240 civilians dead.

So, is 10,000 civilian deaths high for a war of this nature? Do you think this is a realistic estimate? As it's widely assumed that liberals control the media, I'm surprised they haven't leaped on this point. Especially in light of the humanitarian spin going on for the justification of war. And incidentally, has anyone heard of any Iraqi soldier casualty estimates?

[rjung]

As it's widely assumed that liberals control the media, I'm surprised they haven't leaped on this point.
If you think about it for a moment, you'd realize that the lack of press coverage for this situation might be a sign that "liberals control the media" is a myth. Indeed, if you believe that conservatives control the media, then the total silence makes even more sense.

Anyway, addressing the OP, I don't see any reason to believe it's grossly inflated. If anything, I'd peg it at the low end; my gut feeling tells me that 15,000+ dead Iraqi civilians would not be an unrealistic number. The destructive force of modern American military hardware doesn't come across very well when it's on a teevee screen.

[John Carter of Mars]

Or the liberal USA Today's estimate was vastly inflated, and the actual count is less than 1,000.

Since all we're doing is speculating on this subject, my thoughts are as good as the next guy's, eh?

[smiling bandit]

Blind Fools! The Son of Satan has fooled you all! The American Butchers killed and ate over a million Iraqis and more die every day! You are tools of the MAN! You will be punished for your wicked ways when the savior Chomsky descends in Fire and Light from the Holy Mount!

...

*ahem*

I've been wanting to do that for a while. :D

[Rashak Mani]

Check these links:

Iraq o Meter (http://www.iraqometer.com/)

11k Iraqi Soldiers killed... and 8k civilians


Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)

Iraq Body Count seems the best and most balanced...


The Red Cross says to many casualties to count them:

Red Cross (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0406-02.htm)

[Uncivil]

I'd treat the figures with scepticism, but they are certainly plausable. Another important figure is the number of Iraqi conscripts killed in the war.

The "liberals control the media" and "conservatives control the media" arguments are nonsense. Some news sources have a liberal bias, and some have a conservative bias.

[rjung]

The "liberals control the media" and "conservatives control the media" arguments are nonsense. Some news sources have a liberal bias, and some have a conservative bias.
Not to hijack this thread, but I think "the media has a corporate bias" is the closest to the truth. Whatever position will benefit the bottom line the most is the one the media takes, whether that's flooding the airwaves with 24/7 coverage of Janet Jackson's nipple (ratings gold!) or kissing up to the President to ensure continued White House access.

But anything that throws out the "liberals/conservatives control the media" canard is okay with me.

[Uncivil]

Good point rjung.

[epepke]

So, is 10,000 civilian deaths high for a war of this nature? Do you think this is a realistic estimate? As it's widely assumed that liberals control the media, I'm surprised they haven't leaped on this point. Especially in light of the humanitarian spin going on for the justification of war. And incidentally, has anyone heard of any Iraqi soldier casualty estimates?

That would be dangerous.

Somebody might remember that they also claimed that 5000 Iraqis died every month as a result of pre-war sanctions.

[XT]

The OPs figures seem reasonable for a WAG ballpark figure to me. I would figure it would be something like 6-10k casualties for 'civilians' and maybe double that for Iraqi military as my own WAG. One of the reasons for impresision would be how do you distinguish between 'civilian' casualties and 'military'? Especially since the occupation part, the two have tended to blur.

I think this hasn't been reported as much because Americans really don't want to know about this kind of stuff. Its kind of the down side of it all, and I think that most of the news organs here report more what folks want to hear (like J.J's nipple at the superbowl, or the latest J.Lo. BS).

Have to agree with rjung (unbelievable as it may seem) about the 'corporate bias', but think the sucking up to the president to maintain access is a load of bullshit...he probably thinks that too and through that out gratutiously anyway. Since when has it stopped any reporters/news organizations in the past from tearing into the president?? Certainly I don't remember the press pulling too many punches in the past as far as presidents go simply to 'maintain access'. I'll leave it at that, unless rjung wants to bring out some cites about this.

As to the rest of the OP...I'm not sure how to judge the civilian casualties. For something as major as a full blown war where the previous harsh regime was totally tossed out, I'd say the casualties were reasonably light, both civilian and military. I can't think of another major war like this one that had so few casualties. The more recent war that is comparable on scale would be Bosnia, which had a hell of a lot more civilian casualties (though its complicated and doesn't really match up...a lot of the 'civilian casualties weren't caused by NATO after all). Certainly Vietnam had a hell of a lot more civilian casualties (a million? Something like that anyway). How many 'civilian casualties' was there in Afghanistan (either this time of for the russians)? I'm betting they were similar, though probably lower as we didn't do a full scale ground war there. MUCH higher for the Soviets of course.

Not getting into the right or wrong of the Iraq war (I've pretty much said in the past the war was stupid and unnecessary), but strictly looking at the number of casualties, I think, considering the size and scope of the operation, that the casualties were pretty minimal. Cold comfort to those who lost loved ones, no doubt about it.

-XT

[elucidator]

The question of Iraqi casualties will probably never be nailed down to hard numbers. But I rise to ask a related question: How many were expected? How many were they willing to accept?

Perhaps in the ghastly calculus of realpolitik, 10,000 innocent casualties is a price they were willing to bear. After all, they aren't our casualties. At what point would they have hesitated? Were there pre-war estimates of the civilian casualties, and were they based on the same rosy scenarios as the rest of the post-war plan? Were they based on the same shrewd insight as the Bushivik's clear calculation of the threat from WMD's? What price in innocent blood were they willing to accept? 10,000? 100,000? Surely, someone made such an estimate. Just as surely, that estimate was approved as "acceptable".

Sen. Kerry posed a sharp question, lo, those many years ago: how do you ask someone to die for a false cause. The unspoken question is: how do you ask someone to kill for one?

[Uncivil]

A sad fact of war is that, historically speaking, they kill more civilians than soldiers. The Iraq war was probably little diferent in this respect, especially as its not hard to argue that Iraqi conscripts could be counted as civilians.

Possibly the only real justification for the Iraq war is that Saddam's regime would have killed more people than the war did. The answer to this question is a resounding "maybe".

[Desmostylus]

Possibly the only real justification for the Iraq war is that Saddam's regime would have killed more people than the war did. The answer to this question is a resounding "maybe".That's not a real justification at all. There's a UN convention on genocide, which could have been invoked if the US really gave a rat's ass about preventing the deaths of Iraqis under Saddam.

[Uncivil]

That's not a real justification at all. There's a UN convention on genocide, which could have been invoked if the US really gave a rat's ass about preventing the deaths of Iraqis under Saddam.

Well, its a better justification than the ones we have been given by our governments.

[rjung]

Have to agree with rjung (unbelievable as it may seem) about the 'corporate bias', but think the sucking up to the president to maintain access is a load of bullshit...
Not to hijack the thread further, but it's an open secret with the White House Press Corps that anyone who displeases the Administration (such as not kowtowing to the Administration's line) gets their access revoked. No White House access = no ratings, since viewers would rather tune in to a competing network who does have access.

Certainly I don't remember the press pulling too many punches in the past as far as presidents go simply to 'maintain access'.
If you think the White House coverage we've gotten in the last few years is "not pulling too many punches," you have a very lax definition of "hard-hitting journalism." The pre-Iraq-war press conference alone is a shining example of how non-controversial the WHPC is.

I'll leave it at that, unless rjung wants to bring out some cites about this.
There's a whole page of them here. (http://tvnewslies.org/html/white_house_press_corps_.html). I'll just quote from one example: (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/01/155219)
RICK MACARTHUR: The king has almost complete control over the courtier press, and anybody who dares to contradict the king or to challenge the king will be beheaded in a professional sense. In other words, if one of those reporters, one of those 13 reporters that had broken the embargo figured out a way to get the news that the President was in Baghdad, done their job as a reporter, which is to tell the news ... that reporter would be drummed out of the White House press corps. They wouldn't be in the White House press corps anymore. They would get kicked out.

[Age Quod Agis]

Not to hijack the thread further, but it's an open secret with the White House Press Corps that anyone who displeases the Administration (such as not kowtowing to the Administration's line) gets their access revoked.How did you learn of this "open secret"? Do you have any examples of people whose press credentials were revoked because of "displeasing" the Admin? And how do you explain Helen Thomas?If you think the White House coverage we've gotten in the last few years is "not pulling too many punches," you have a very lax definition of "hard-hitting journalism." The pre-Iraq-war press conference alone is a shining example of how non-controversial the WHPC is.Right. Because before the war, I had a hard time finding articles saying we should not have invaded Iraq, or saying that Iraq had turned into a quagmire, or saying that we hadn't sent enough troops in to do the job, or saying that we were going to lose the war. And I sure can't find any articles saying that we're now "losing" the peace. Yep, articles critical of the President hardly ever make it into reputable papers (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/06/opinion/06KRUG.html).here. (http://tvnewslies.org/html/white_house_press_corps_.html). I'll just quote from one example: (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/01/155219)I don't think you could have chosen a worse example.

At that time, Baghdad wasn't exactly a stable environment, and not everyone in Baghdad was Bush's biggest fan. If word had leaked, we could have expected an attempt in Bush's life. The Admin (and the press) kept a lid on the fact that the Pres was in Baghdad because knowledge that the Pres was in Baghdad could have put the Pres's life in jeopardy.

Hell, the Admin wanted everyone to know where the Pres was. They probably wanted them to know while the Pres was in Baghdad. Bush was criticized on these boards for engaging in a cheap publicity stunt. "Publicity" stunts imply publicity. And now you're suggesting that the press showed that they were cowtowwing by not revealing facts until those facts would not have put the President's life in danger?

I think your standard is a bit askew.There's a UN convention on genocide, which could have been invoked if the US really gave a rat's ass about preventing the deaths of Iraqis under Saddam.So all we had to do was invoke the UN convention on genocide, and the genocide would go away? So why hasn't this magical convention been invoked in other parts of the world to avoid war? Say, Bosnia, for example?Perhaps in the ghastly calculus of realpolitik, 10,000 innocent casualties is a price they were willing to bear. After all, they aren't our casualties. At what point would they have hesitated? Were there pre-war estimates of the civilian casualties, and were they based on the same rosy scenarios as the rest of the post-war plan? Were they based on the same shrewd insight as the Bushivik's clear calculation of the threat from WMD's? What price in innocent blood were they willing to accept? 10,000? 100,000? Surely, someone made such an estimate. Just as surely, that estimate was approved as "acceptable".There are those that opposed invading Iraq, despite the fact that Saddam Hussein was torturing and killing thousands of his own citizens, and the UN sanctions were reputedly causing the death of 5,000 Iraqis every month.

Perhaps in the ghastly calculus of realpolitik, those opposing invasion thought that 5,000+ innocent casualties per month is a price they were willing to bear. After all, they aren't our casualties. At what point would they have hesitated? Were there pre-war estimates of the civilian casualties, and were they based on the same rosy scenarios as the rest of the Demostylus "invoke the magic convention" plan? Were they based on the same shrewd insight as the rjungivick's clear calculation of the threat from a conservative press? What price in innocent blood were they willing to accept before invading? 10,000? 100,000? Surely, someone made such an estimate. Just as surely, that estimate was approved as "acceptable".

In other words, "pot, kettle, black."

[elucidator]

Those certainly are other words, in that one regard you are entirely corrrect.

You flop a statistic as though reading from the Gospel, "those opposing invasion thought that 5,000+ innocent casualties per month is a price they were willing to bear" I hesitate to guess from whence you pulled this number. Was it perhaps from a speech given by the Shining One? I don't recall him saying anything about a mad dash to save "5,000" lives per month. Does this statistic carry with it the same adamantine reliability that we've come to expect from the Admin? Does it carry the Ahmed Chalabi Seal of Honesty? These are important questions. In your haste to expose my hypocrisy, you seem to have overlooked them. Perhaps when you have more time....

Maybe you mean to ring in that oldy but goldy.....that those people were dying from the sanctions we imposed, and it was Saddam's fault that we imposed them, therefore he was killing them. This is pure weasel-think. Of course, I hold you in too high a regard to even suggest you might have tried to foist off such an unseemly argument.

How many innocent civilians died? I've no idea. It seems as though comparatively few perished, and this must gladden any humane heart. But it is more a marvelous circumstance than anything else, anyone with any awareness of history knows that war is chaos made manifest, the thing unanticipated is the thing most likely, and no one can anticipate chaos. We risked many more lives than were actually lost, under a false flag of pre-emptive self defense, and now try to pretend we were on a campaign of selfless and noble liberation.

If anyone ever again believes a word we say, it will be a wonder.

[Voodoochile]

Not to hijack the thread further, but it's an open secret with the White House Press Corps that anyone who displeases the Administration (such as not kowtowing to the Administration's line) gets their access revoked. No White House access = no ratings, since viewers would rather tune in to a competing network who does have access.

There's a whole page of them here. (http://tvnewslies.org/html/white_house_press_corps_.html). I'll just quote from one example: (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/01/155219)

Not arguing with you but I would just like to point out, because from your post one could get a different impression, that this has pretty much been the way it is for the last several administrations, whether republican or democrat, probably stretching back to the 19th century at least. Clinton, Bush Sr, Raygun, Carter, Ford, LBJ etc etc etc all had chief of staffs that used white house access as carrots and sticks. Im suprised someone actually asked for a cite.

elucidator, you said:

I can't think of another major war like this one that had so few casualties. The more recent war that is comparable on scale would be Bosnia, which had a hell of a lot more civilian casualties (though its complicated and doesn't really match up...a lot of the 'civilian casualties weren't caused by NATO after all).

Im not too sure this casualty list is comprised only of casualties caused by the US/British military; I would bet almost anything that civilian casualties of suicide bombers etc in Iraq are being placed amongst the casualties in that list. I think it is just as complicated in that regard as Bosnia.

[gemstone]

Was curious about the number of innocents killed in Iraq during our occupation, so far.

The Ministry of Health in Iraq was orderd to STOP counting civilian deaths a while back by the US. In addition, they were prohibited from releasing any of the numbers they already had. The numbers gathered from hosipitals and funeral homes is between 6 and ten thousand civilians. But that's a low estimate. Most deaths were not recorded in hospitals. People died in the rubble of their homes. They died in remote towns and villages. They continue to die every day. We're not getting the numbers of military deaths or wounded. Election year strategy is clear. No numbers of those dead because of our embargo, either. Only estimates. What the heck...war is a game. People die. Not too many people care. Janet Jackson's breast exposure upsets people. Not dead people. So long as we don't see them. Uh...the flag draped photos of incoming dead are not allowed. It has to look surgical and sanitary so Bush can be elected. Ugly world.

[XT]

From rjungs fair and balanced cite. Definitely up to your usual standard of attempting to maintain perspective and be fair in your analysis of the opposing side, as usual. Bravo!!

Get on your knees, unzip Bush’s pants, and swallow the lies without a question. You have become the crack whores of journalism.

You are right, rjung...this calm and balanced look certainly shows me the light. Thanks for providing it. At least I got a good laugh.

If you think the White House coverage we've gotten in the last few years is "not pulling too many punches," you have a very lax definition of "hard-hitting journalism." The pre-Iraq-war press conference alone is a shining example of how non-controversial the WHPC is.

Were we speaking strictly of the WHPC?? I thought we were talking about journalism in America in general. I see little different than I've seen in other administrations as far as reporting on the President. I remember folks on the conservative side howling about Clinton and how the press gave him an easy ride too. Same for Bush I. Certainly the same for Regan. I also remember the howls of the Clinton side that the press was out to get him...same with all the others mentioned. Its always good for a laugh, IMO, reguardless of which side is in power, or who is currently howling.

Personally I think that if YOUR guys isn't in power and the press isn't spending 24/7 attacking him, you are apt to think that the press is giving him an easy ride. If YOUR guys IS in power, then you are apt to think the press is out to get him. From my perspective, it seems pretty much business as usual. But I'm biased, right? :)


Voodoochile, that quote was from me, not 'luci. You've probably terribly offended him attributing something from my unworthy keyboard to him. :)

As to your statement, my WAG is my WAG. The numbers came out of the air to be honest...based on my own speculations. Its my impression that, relatively speaking and looking at it dispassionately, the casualties were fairly light considering what was done. Of course, as 'luci pointed out, you CAN'T really look at the deaths of innocent civilians (or even NOT innocent military personnel) without some pangs...especially in something that has every appearence of being a war fought for no good reason.

As far as how many would have died if the US had NOT invaded, its a moot point really. Its not the US's JOB to fix all the problems with the world...the world doesn't want our help, folks. People die every day in little shit hole countries around the world, unfortunately. Should the US fix all of those too? SHould we invade northern Africa and impose order and peace (they REALLY fucking need the help after all)? Should we march into North Korea and depose KjI and his band of lunitics? A hell of a lot more than 5000 people die a month in those places due to the current regimes. I was and remain all for what we did in Afghanistan. But Iraq, IMHO, was not necessary, and has distracted us from what we should be doing...hunting down AQ wherever they are.

I'm not wanting to hijack this into yet another Iraq war screed so I'll stop there. From a purely numerical perspective I've already given my opinion on civilian and military casualties. I'll probably once again get hammered from both sides. Sam Stone will call me a leftist and rjung will call me a Bushista republican conservative, blah blah blah. C'est la vie I guess.

-XT

[Ale]

[QUOTE=Uncivil]A sad fact of war is that, historically speaking, they kill more civilians than soldiers.QUOTE]

That´s not true, AFAIK, untill WWII, wars involved more militar casualties than civilian, in general. YMMV

[elucidator]

...Voodoochile, that quote was from me, not 'luci. You've probably terribly offended him attributing something from my unworthy keyboard to him....

A Dell QuietKey 9000, I'll have you know, with dual carb shift key and a stroked and bored hemi NumLock.

(Glad you pointed that out, I was staring at that quote and scratching my head. I mean, its perfectly sensible, and all, but it lacks sarcasm. A bit unsettling, like a man with seven children who suddenly realizes that six look like him...)

[XT]

Ale...lol. Thats wildly inaccurate. Civilians have always suffered. While its true that this wasn't ALWAYS the case (I would guess less 'civilians' died in the US civil war or the Revolutionary war, say, than soldiers...but it still wasn't good), history abounds of wars where a hell of a lot more civilians died than 'combatants' long before WWII. Just look at European history and the examples will leap out at you. Look up the civilian casualty estimates for the Thirty Years War sometime...its truely astounding.

-XT

[Voodoochile]

Voodoochile, that quote was from me, not 'luci. You've probably terribly offended him attributing something from my unworthy keyboard to him. :)


Sorry, apologies all around.

[Ale]

Ale...lol. Thats wildly inaccurate. Civilians have always suffered. While its true that this wasn't ALWAYS the case (I would guess less 'civilians' died in the US civil war or the Revolutionary war, say, than soldiers...but it still wasn't good), history abounds of wars where a hell of a lot more civilians died than 'combatants' long before WWII. Just look at European history and the examples will leap out at you. Look up the civilian casualty estimates for the Thirty Years War sometime...its truely astounding.

-XT

I´m not an expert, but for what I know, untill the 20th century urban warfare was not the norm, civilians were not in the line of fire, or direct targets; obviously, civilians, like everybody else suffered the effects of a war, and sure enough civilians have been dying for the effects of conflicts since Og, whacked the chief of the next tribe on the head with a club.

[XT]

Plague...starvation....disease...fire. That was how civilians died in the time before mechanized warfare when various armies marched about (ah, the good old days :)). No, they weren't DIRECTLY targetted mostly (though plenty DID die this way). I suppose its all in how you look at it. But dieing of starvation or the Plague is as dead as dieing from a sword or gun...or bomb. Nastier way to die, to, than a bomb blast IMO.

You are thinking of bombs and air power. Think of sieges with poor sanitation. You are thinking of rockets and guided missiles. Think of armies burning farms and fields, or raiding food storage areas. In the good ole days, when an army would capture a town or village, entire populations could and were put to the sword...men, women and children. The more 'civilized' of course would simply release their troops on the defenseless population for a bit of R&R. If the civilians were lucky, the troops wouldn't burn down the town...they'd only rape their women and kill SOME of the population off, in their enthusiasm to have a good time.

Anyway, don't want to get into this hijack. Hell, make a thread about it and you will get Tamerlane involved who REALLY knows this stuff...or several of the other really knowledgable historian types on this board.

If you are interested in this, like I said, look up such things as the Thirty Years War, or any of the other large European conflicts for that matter (the various Catholic/Protestant wars, which the 30 years war was sort of an example were especially brutal on the civilian populations, as well as several of the English civil wars...or the '45, especially AFTER the defeat of the Bonney Prince at Colloden). I'm not as familiar with other areas, but I'd guess that this was pretty much the norm throughout the world when it came to warfare...civilians ALWAYS took it on the chops. You will be surprised at how many civilians died during the wars before mechanization.

-XT

[Desmostylus]

I think your standard is a bit askew.So all we had to do was invoke the UN convention on genocide, and the genocide would go away? So why hasn't this magical convention been invoked in other parts of the world to avoid war? Say, Bosnia, for example?Been taking debating lessons from Bush, huh?

The civil war in Yugoslavia saw UN intervention occur almost immediately, and a cease fire within six months. The initial intervention, and most of the subsequent stuff, was done under Chapter VII, Action with respest to threats to the peace, breaces of the peace, and acts of aggression.

The Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide could have been invoked instead, and in fact was subsequently invoked.

Just in case you didn't know.

Next, you can tell us how Saddam didn't let the inspectors back in.

[Uncivil]

[QUOTE=Uncivil]A sad fact of war is that, historically speaking, they kill more civilians than soldiers.[QUOTE]

That´s not true, AFAIK, untill WWII, wars involved more militar casualties than civilian, in general. YMMV

Thats a widely held misconception. Its probably true that soldiers killed more soldiers than civilians in direct combat, but a lot of the causualties are caused by famine and disease. A few examples from history.

In 1919, a year after the end of WWI, the infant mortality rate in Berlin was about 1 in 5.

In the Napoleonic wars, there are many examples of British troops going on the rampage after a battle, raping, killing their way through towns. (I mnetion that example becuase I know about, I wouldn't be suprised to learn other armies of teh same period behaved like this.

"Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens."
("Kill them all; for the Lord knoweth them that are His.")

[Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Citeaux, 1209, when asked by the Crusaders what to do with the citizens of Beziers who were a mixture of Catholics and Cathars.]

'In order to wipe out Catharism, a religion thriving in the south of France, the predominant Christian power of the time ordered a crusade. The crusade, named the Albigensian Crusade, lasted thirty-years. The death toll from this butchery is estimated at one-million lives, many of whom were Catholics, indistinguishable from Cathars by the marauders. Even children were slaughtered. One commander told his men: "Kill them all, for God knows his own!"

[XT]

UN intervention, Desmostylus?? Correct me if I'm wrong here (with a cite would be good) but I thought it was NATO that intervened in Bosnia...without UN SC approval at all. I'm not getting into whether it was good or bad, right or wrong here...just getting the facts straight. If I'm wrong, by all means put a cite in and I'll stand corrected. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying??

-XT

[Desmostylus]

a cite would be goodHere's a brief timeline of what happened in Yogoslavia:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~frankti/Warhistory/war_hist.html

[Uncivil]

That's not a real justification at all. There's a UN convention on genocide, which could have been invoked if the US really gave a rat's ass about preventing the deaths of Iraqis under Saddam.

Yes, they could have done that, but the UN's condemnation of the genocide in Rwanda didn't stop it. The UN is often pretty toothless. Despite that, I'd agree that working through the UN would have been better than unilateral action. I'm not saying Iraqi oppression had much to do with the US' decision to wage war on Iraq.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Even by the most conservative estimates it looks like Bush has still killed twice as many civilians as bin Laden.

Funny how selective Americans are about their outrage.

[Age Quod Agis]

You flop a statistic as though reading from the Gospel, "those opposing invasion thought that 5,000+ innocent casualties per month is a price they were willing to bear" I hesitate to guess from whence you pulled this number. Was it perhaps from a speech given by the Shining One? I don't recall him saying anything about a mad dash to save "5,000" lives per month. Does this statistic carry with it the same adamantine reliability that we've come to expect from the Admin? Does it carry the Ahmed Chalabi Seal of Honesty? These are important questions. In your haste to expose my hypocrisy, you seem to have overlooked them. Perhaps when you have more time....Fair question.

From a PBS article written in 1998 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/iraq_3-13a.html):Meanwhile, Iraq says the sanctions, beyond devastating the economy, are responsible for the deaths of 1.2 million people, including many children. . . . U.N. report estimated that 420,000 children, 5,000 every month since 1991, have died because of inadequate medical care and insufficient food supplies. The report also said that one third of all Iraqi children are malnourished and many suffer from infections.So, based on the UN's numbers, my number was incorrect. Thank you for pointing that out. I should have said that 5,000 children were dying each month.

Here's a more detailed 2001 report on the effects of UN sanctions (http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq17.html):UN figures show that more than 1.7 million Iraqi civilians have died as a result of the sanctions.
. . . .
Approximately 250 people die every day in Iraq due to the effect of the sanctions, the UNICEF report added.So 250 people every day would bring the number up to 7,500 people dying every month as a result of UN sanctions.

I doubt I need to talk about the thousands of "innocent Iraqi citizens" buried in mass graves that were unquestionably killed by Saddam and his henchmen. So let's just say that there were other reasons that thousands of "innocent Iraqi civilians" were dying, and that Iraqis have less reason to worry now that Saddam has been deposed.

Personally, I think the estimates of how many people died because of UN sanctions could have been high. But I don't see how you can say that your opposition to war and your support for continuing the policy of UN sanctions and containment didn't condemn thousands of "innocent Iraqi citizens" to death.But it is more a marvelous circumstance than anything else, anyone with any awareness of history knows that war is chaos made manifest, the thing unanticipated is the thing most likely, and no one can anticipate chaos. We risked many more lives than were actually lost, under a false flag of pre-emptive self defense, and now try to pretend we were on a campaign of selfless and noble liberation.Please. You're arguing against the war because it could theoretically have gone worse?

Well, it didn't. You were wrong. Get over it.

And I'm not trying to "pretend we were on a campaign of selfless and noble liberation." I have no illusions that regimes still exist that are nearly as bad as Hussein's. We went into Iraq because it best fit our goals and was in our best interests. One of the reasons I supported regime change was that it was (in my opinion) in the best interests of Iraqi citizens . . . but it wasn't the only reason, or probably even the most important.

But don't you pretend that your opposition to the war is in any way influenced by some alleged concern for the well-being of "innocent Iraqi citizens." In fact, you made the same analysis that you disparaged Bush & Co. for making. You looked at thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians that were dying every month, and apparently made the decision that it was better to let them die than to lose face with the international community.

[laigle]

I'm sorry, but are we seriously suggesting Sadaam is to blame for the results of UN sanctions? If the sanctions were so harsh that people were starving and dying of treatable disease en masse, then it was incumbent on the UN to alter the terms of the sanctions to protect civilian life. The fact that they continually refused to do so, prompted largely by the US, was one of my greatest criticisms of the Clinton administration.

[Gomez]

Please. You're arguing against the war because it could theoretically have gone worse?

Well, it didn't. You were wrong. Get over it.


Okay, got it. You're like the woman in the old joke who agrees to cheat on her husband and sleep with another guy for a million dollars. The guy then offers her five bucks. She slaps him and says "What sort of woman do you think I am?" The guy retorts "Well, we've already established that, now we're just haggling over the price".

In other words, what you don't get is that a whore is a whore. The pay off may make the immoral act more understandable but it doesn't change the label, nor does it change its connotations.

The bottom line is that we put the civilians of Iraq in harms way by invading. The Iraqi people, 40% of whom are under the age of 14, were unable to make their conformed consent to take the risk of being put in harms way. I think that for the Iraqi dead, the Iraqi's maimed, widowed and orphaned by our bombs the solution was worse than the problem and we didn't have the right to make that decision for them.


So let's just say that there were other reasons that thousands of "innocent Iraqi civilians" were dying, and that Iraqis have less reason to worry now that Saddam has been deposed.


This is an enormous assumption. At the moment the Iraqi's have very little by way of electricity or clean water. Vast swathes of the land are littered with unexploded cluster bombs. Inflation has seen the price of food skyrocket by about 700% (and no I don't have a cite for that, I saw it on BBC news the other day). Insurgents are still blowing themselves up with horrific results. The stage seems to be set for lasting political conflict between the Sunni's and Shiites and what's more we still have absolutely no indication whatsoever that the new boss will be any better than the old boss.

What we have done in Iraq is instigate the worlds first ever mass mercy killing, without the consent of the people we killed and at the moment we have absolutely no idea whether or not it did any good.


So 250 people every day would bring the number up to 7,500 people dying every month as a result of UN sanctions.


Sanctions which, may I remind you were Rigorously enforced by the U.S. in spite of calls from other nations to do away with them. The horrific consequences of the sanctions were good reason to drop them years ago, not effect a regime change. Hell, for all we know the new Iraqi Government may not co-operate with us and the sanctions may be reinstated.

[Gomez]

Oops, buggered the coding.

Click [url="http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/civflight/000926us.htm"]here[url] to read how America rigorously enforced the UN sanctions at the expense of 7,500 civilians per month.

[Gomez]

Oh for fucks sake. There aint enough :rolleyes: in the world for this shit. Just click below.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/civflight/000926us.htm

[Age Quod Agis]

Originally posted by Demostylus
There's a UN convention on genocide, which could have been invoked if the US really gave a rat's ass about preventing the deaths of Iraqis under Saddam.

Originally posted by me
So all we had to do was invoke the UN convention on genocide, and the genocide would go away? So why hasn't this magical convention been invoked in other parts of the world to avoid war? Say, Bosnia, for example?

Originally posted by Desmostylus
The civil war in Yugoslavia saw UN intervention occur almost immediately, and a cease fire within six months. The initial intervention, and most of the subsequent stuff, was done under Chapter VII, Action with respest to threats to the peace, breaces of the peace, and acts of aggression.

The Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide could have been invoked instead, and in fact was subsequently invoked.

Just in case you didn't know.I didn't know the convention had been invoked on Bosnia. And after looking at the link you provided for xstime, and doing some research on my own, I still couldn't find anywhere that the UN invoked any articles on genocide with regard to Bosnia. I'd appreciate a cite.

But my snarkiness has apparently obscured my point. The US need not have invoked the UN convention on genocide to have been concerned with genocide. Invoking the charter would have had no more effect than writing the word "genocide" on a peice of paper and then crossing it out with a big, red "X." Which is to say that it would have had no effect at all, except as a waste of time, effort, and ink.

[Age Quod Agis]

I'm sorry, but are we seriously suggesting Sadaam is to blame for the results of UN sanctions? Are you seriously suggesting that he had nothing to do with them? Or with mutliplying the number of deaths that resulted from them? And if you bothered to look at the article I linked, you'd see the following:As a British House of Commons International Development Select Committee points out:

“The reasons sanctions were imposed in the first place were precisely the untrustworthiness of Saddam Hussein, his well documented willingness to oppress his own people and neighbours, his contempt for humanitarian law. The international community cannot condemn Saddam Hussein for such behaviour and then complain that he is not allowing humanitarian exemptions to relieve suffering. What else could be expected? A sanctions regime which relies on the good will of Saddam Hussein is fundamentally flawed.”

There can be no surprise then that the United Nations attributes the suffering in Iraq not principally to the Iraqi government, but to the sanctions regime.But that point is irrelevant to my argument. Even if you think Saddam Hussein was just sitting around in his gold-plated bachelor pads and preparing lesson plans for Cub Scout meetings while the big, bad UN was hammering his people with sanctions, it doesn't matter.

The sanctions were causing thousands of deaths. The sanctions were inextricably tied to Saddam's regime. Thousands of other deaths were caused by the torture and murder ordered by Saddam and his regime. By getting rid of Saddam, the UN was able to lift the sanctions and the Iraqis were freed from the threat of torture and murder at Saddam's hands.

So anyone that argues that we should have kept the status quo was effectively arguing that it wasn't worth saving the lives of thousands of Iraqis by deposing Hussein.

[Desmostylus]

I didn't know the convention had been invoked on Bosnia. And after looking at the link you provided for xstime, and doing some research on my own, I still couldn't find anywhere that the UN invoked any articles on genocide with regard to Bosnia. I'd appreciate a cite.I don't think you looked very hard.Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) - Judgement - Preliminary Objections [1996] ICJ 4 (http://www.worldlii.org/int/cases/ICJ/1996/4.html)

1. On 20 March 1993, the Government of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina (hereinafter called "Bosnia-Herzegovina") filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (hereinafter called "Yugoslavia") in respect of a dispute concerning alleged violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter called "the Genocide Convention"), adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948, as well as various matters which Bosnia-Herzegovina claims are connected therewith. The Application invoked Article IX of the Genocide Convention as the basis of the jurisdiction of the Court.
Invoking the charter would have had no more effect than writing the word "genocide" on a peice of paper and then crossing it out with a big, red "X." Which is to say that it would have had no effect at all, except as a waste of time, effort, and ink.I take your point. I guess that'd explain why Milosovic is still running Serbia, instead of being on trial for Genocide. Oh, wait a minute...

[Gomez]

So anyone that argues that we should have kept the status quo was effectively arguing that it wasn't worth saving the lives of thousands of Iraqis by deposing Hussein.


Only in the same way that someone arguing for opem markets is "in effect" arguing for the complete ecological devastation of the third world.

Besides, how on earth do you figure that opposing the sanctions is incompatible with an anti war stance? The sanctions should have been done away with years ago and reiterating how much damage they've done doesn't magically transform the spectre of their continued existence into an argument for pre-emptive war. This isn't Beetlejuice, arguments and things don't just magically change if you repeat them.

[laigle]

Are you seriously suggesting that he had nothing to do with them? Or with mutliplying the number of deaths that resulted from them?

No, and that's one of the most pathetic strawmen I've ever seen. Congrats.

Even if you think Saddam Hussein was just sitting around in his gold-plated bachelor pads and preparing lesson plans for Cub Scout meetings while the big, bad UN was hammering his people with sanctions, it doesn't matter.

Although that one takes the cake.

The sanctions were causing thousands of deaths. The sanctions were inextricably tied to Saddam's regime.

Bzzt. Wrong. Try again.

You see, the terms of the sanctions were dictated by the UN, largely at the urging of the US. We were not powerless to change them. If people were starving, it was a simple matter to simply LET MORE FUCKING FOOD IN, now wasn't it? When cholera outbreaks were killing thousands, we could have, oh, for instance, LET FUCKING MEDICINE IN. Sadaam had jack shit all to do with it.

The restrictions were not only alterable by the outside world, they were placed in such a way as to have maximum detriment to the civilian populace while Sadaam sat in his aforementioned mansions. In point of fact, that exact list of things that could and couldn't cross the border was altered, several times at that.

You see, a sane, rational human being is capable of seperating the idea of punishing Sadaam and restricting the expansion of his military power from a specific piece of paper. If the specific set of banned items wasn't a good idea, it was within the power of the UN to alter the list. And if it was killing people without sufficient offsetting cause, it was morally required to do so.

[Age Quod Agis]

The bottom line is that we put the civilians of Iraq in harms way by invading. The Iraqi people, 40% of whom are under the age of 14, were unable to make their conformed consent to take the risk of being put in harms way. I think that for the Iraqi dead, the Iraqi's maimed, widowed and orphaned by our bombs the solution was worse than the problem and we didn't have the right to make that decision for them.Wah? :confused:

So we should have waited until the Iraqi population was of voting age, and then let them vote for an invasion? Was there a referendum process or something that we would have had to apply for? And do you have any reason to believe that such a referendum would fail?

Of course we had the right to make the decision. The reason that we had that right is because the Iraqi people didn't have the ability to make the decision for themselves, and their inability to get rid of him affected us (although the amount that Hussein affected us is certainly debatable). It's the same reason that the State can take away the children of an abusive parent: it's for the good of the children, for the good of the state, and for the good of society as a whole.At the moment the Iraqi's have very little by way of electricity or clean water. Vast swathes of the land are littered with unexploded cluster bombs. Inflation has seen the price of food skyrocket by about 700% (and no I don't have a cite for that, I saw it on BBC news the other day). Insurgents are still blowing themselves up with horrific results. The stage seems to be set for lasting political conflict between the Sunni's and Shiites and what's more we still have absolutely no indication whatsoever that the new boss will be any better than the old boss.I doubt the accuracy of many of these claims. But even if they were true, how is this worse than Saddam Hussein's Iraq? Take a look at the link to the 2001 report that I provided above. It details the numerous ways that life in Iraq sucked under Saddam Hussein:

- 50% of all rural people had no access to potable water

- Food may have cost 700% less (an especially dubious claim), but there wasn't nearly enough of it. According to a UNICEF report, "32 percent of children under five, some 960,000 children [were] chronically malnourished."

- "The UN’s Department of Humanitarian Affairs report[ed] that Iraq’s public health services [were] nearing a total breakdown from a lack of basic medicines, lifesaving drugs and essential medical supplies."

- The functional capacity of the health care system has degraded further by shortages of water and power supply, lack of transportation and the collapse of the telecommunications system.

- According to charges drawn up by Ramsey Clark, sanctions led to the Iraqi people being deprived of "essentials to support and protect human life. These essentials include[d] medicines and medical supplies, safe drinking water, adequate food, insecticides, fertilisers, equipment and parts required for agriculture, food processing, storage and distribution, hospital and medical clinic procedures; a multitude of common items such as light bulbs and fluorescent tubes; equipment and parts for the generation and distribution of electricity, telephone and other communications, public transportation and other essential human services."

- "Insurgents" may have not been blowing people up (as far as I know), but Saddam Hussein was killing thousands (http://trojanhorseshoes.blogfodder.net/archives/009311.html). And the overall rates of violent crimes now appear to be in line with many American cities (http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/14687.htm) (I'll leave it up to you whether that's good enough).

- And in case you didn't know, the conflict between the Sunnis and Shias pre-dates even Hussein's regime.What we have done in Iraq is instigate the worlds first ever mass mercy killing, without the consent of the people we killed and at the moment we have absolutely no idea whether or not it did any good.I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. "The world's first ever mercy killing?" Has there really never been a mercy killing? Even if you characterize the collateral damage from a humanitarian intervention as "mercy killing" (and I don't see how that makes any sense), surely you don't think this is the first time that's happened in the history of the world, do you?

And again, how do you suggest that we go about getting the "consent of the people we killed"?

[Age Quod Agis]

I don't think you looked very hard.You've cited to a preliminary judgment (on jurisdiction and other minor issues) issued by the International Court of Justice, an organization that the US does not recognize as legitimate. Are you suggesting that the US couldn't have cared about genocide because they didn't bring Hussein up on charges before an organization that they refuse to participate in?I take your point. I guess that'd explain why Milosovic is still running Serbia, instead of being on trial for Genocide. Oh, wait a minute...I take your point. Because I had forgotten that Milosevic straightened up right after he heard that the ICJ had issued a ruling on jurisdiction (http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ii990524e.htm), and that the reason he's no longer running Serbia is because the ICJ issued a ruling, and not because he was booted out of power (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/960747.stm). Oh, wait a minute . . . .

[Age Quod Agis]

Besides, how on earth do you figure that opposing the sanctions is incompatible with an anti war stance?I don't. I was responding to elucidator's charge that Bush & Co. had obviously figured that some number of civilian casualties was fine. I was pointing out that the anti-war crowd made the same determination.The sanctions should have been done away with years agoI agree. reiterating how much damage they've done doesn't magically transform the spectre of their continued existence into an argument for pre-emptive war. But it does respond to your charge that Iraqis could have more worries now than with Hussein in charge.This isn't Beetlejuice, arguments and things don't just magically change if you repeat them.Did that happen in Beetlejuice? I can't remember that scene.

[Age Quod Agis]

Are you seriously suggesting that he had nothing to do with them? Or with mutliplying the number of deaths that resulted from them?No, and that's one of the most pathetic strawmen I've ever seen. Congrats. Oh, I'm sorry. Was it someone else that said "I'm sorry, but are we seriously suggesting Sadaam is to blame for the results of UN sanctions?" So I guess you actually meant that Hussein was to blame for the results of UN sanctions?Although that one takes the cake.It was meant to be fascetious, Cruella.You see, the terms of the sanctions were dictated by the UN, largely at the urging of the US. We were not powerless to change them. If people were starving, it was a simple matter to simply LET MORE FUCKING FOOD IN, now wasn't it? When cholera outbreaks were killing thousands, we could have, oh, for instance, LET FUCKING MEDICINE IN. Sadaam had jack shit all to do with it. But wait! Didn't you just accuse me of constructing a strawman for insinuating that you'd said that Saddam had nothing to do with the effects of sanctions? And here you say exactly what I suggested you'd said?

. . . So I guess it wasn't a strawman, after all?

But naturally, you have no point. Once again, I'd encourage you to read the 2001 report I linked below:Of course the role of the Iraqi government in exacerbating the devastating impact of sanctions cannot be denied. As the London-based Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding (CAABU) reports:

“[The government’s] problems were greatly exacerbated by imposition of economic sanctions in 1990, but the Iraqi government has continued to manage - or mismanage-economic and fiscal policy, deploying increasingly scarce resources to its own advantage and that of favoured groups. The government took some steps to provide a safety net in the form of basic rations, often meagre and of low protein content, but nonetheless preventing mass starvation. It has evidently used this system politically as a means to increase the dependence of the population and as a form of control.”And since you seem to have forgotten, advancing coalition troops in Iraq found storehouses of rotting food and medicine from the UN's "Oil for Food" Program. The UN had lifted sanctions sufficiently to let more medicine and food get in, and Hussein and his henchmen had foisted the medicine and food for themselves. They had grabbed so much, in fact, that the unused portions were literally spoiling, while Iraqis were starving and dying from lack of basic medical supplies.

So what makes you think that if we'd sent more food and medicine, it would have made it to the people that needed it, when the stuff we were already sending them wasn't being allowed to get off the docks or out of the warehouses?The restrictions were not only alterable by the outside world, they were placed in such a way as to have maximum detriment to the civilian populace while Sadaam sat in his aforementioned mansions.All sanctions effect the civilian population more than they effect the government being sanctioned. It's one of the reasons that I almost always oppose sanctions.

Do you really think there were any sanctions that we could have levied that would have effected only Hussein and his government, but not the Iraqi populace?If the specific set of banned items wasn't a good idea, it was within the power of the UN to alter the list. And if it was killing people without sufficient offsetting cause, it was morally required to do so.And we're back to my original point: if it was killing more people for us to not invade Iraq and we had no sufficient offsetting cause, then were we morally obligated to invade?

[Age Quod Agis]

Crap. I just realized that by appending the word "Cruella" to the end of one of my (exhorbinantly long) messages, I may have violated the board's policy on personal insults in GD.

I meant it only in jest. If I caused offense to you, laigle, I apologize.

I am also reporting my post to the Mods so they can take whatever action is appropriate.

[elucidator]

Because the Iraqi people were suffering so terribly due to sanctions, sanctions for which the USA is largely responsible, it became necessary for the USA to invade and occupy Iraq in order to relieve the suffering created by sanctions.

Perhaps we have failed to get the message out. We listen closely for the glad hymns of praise and adoration. Or it may be just another example of churlish ingratitude for America's noble sacrifice. Why, even to this day, the citizens of Nicaragua and Guatemala have been very subdued in their expressions of gratitude for our long campaign to protect them from the dread evil of socialism. And when have we gotten a nice Christmas card from Grenada?

I guess some people are just like that, huh?

[Desmostylus]

You've cited to a preliminary judgment (on jurisdiction and other minor issues) issued by the International Court of Justice, You asked for a cite, remember?I didn't know the convention had been invoked on Bosnia. And after looking at the link you provided for xstime, and doing some research on my own, I still couldn't find anywhere that the UN invoked any articles on genocide with regard to Bosnia. I'd appreciate a cite. The cite I provided establishes the factual matter, that the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide had been invoked with regard to Bosnia. Any subsequent piffle you posted, even if it was true, would not negate that fact.an organization that the US does not recognize as legitimate.You just made that up. The US does not recognize that the ICJ has compulsory jurisdiction over the US, which is an entirely different matter. Are you suggesting that the US couldn't have cared about genocide because they didn't bring Hussein up on charges before an organization that they refuse to participate in?There's two things wrong with that:

a) The ICJ is not the only forum available. The Security Council is also available to the US, if for some reason (e.g. to avoid accusations of hypocrisy) it didn't want to use the ICJ.

b) Your claim that the US refuses to participate in the ICJ is simply untrue, i.e., you made it up. The US participates in the election of judges and provides judges to the court, e.g. Thomas Buergenthal (http://homepages.uc.edu/thro/gvus/ICJDecision.htm). The US participates in cases, such as Germany v US which is mentioned in the Buergenthal link. The US provides evidence to the court, e.g. General Wesley Clark's testimony (http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2003/p802-e.htm):The US Government has agreed to allow General Clark to testify in the Milosevic trial pursuant to Rule 70 of the RPE and as such, it is entitled to seek certain protective measures with respect to his testimony. These protective measures were requested through the Office of the Prosecutor.

The Trial Chamber is bound by an Appeals Chamber Decision (Prosecutor v. Milosevic, "Decision on the Interpretation and Application of Rule 70" of 23 October, 2002) which grants the information provider (US Government) a right to impose certain conditions upon the testimony of a witness provided by it under Rule 70 of the RPE. I take your point. Because I had forgotten that Milosevic straightened up right after he heard that the ICJ had issued a ruling on jurisdiction (http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ii990524e.htm)I fail to see the significance of your bringing up the ICTY. Yes, the ICTY is distinct from the ICJ. It was established by Security Council Resuloution 827 on 25 May 1993. It was set up specifically to prosecute instances in Yugoslavia of:

- Grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
- Violations of the laws or customs of war.
- Genocide.
- Crimes against humanity.

What was your initial point again? Oh yes, this:So why hasn't this magical convention been invoked in other parts of the world to avoid war? Say, Bosnia, for example? No amount of weasling or flat-out lying on your part is going to change the simple fact that the convention was invoked, on multiple occassions and in multiple fora.and that the reason he's no longer running Serbia is because the ICJ issued a ruling, and not because he was booted out of power (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/960747.stm). Oh, wait a minute . . . .He's on trial for Genocide. That's the practical upshot of the Genocide Convention being invoked. Do you deny that he's currently on trial? Do you deny that he's currently in UN custody? Or are you trying to claim that he hasn't been charged with genocide, on the basis of the indictment you cited? That indictment is only one of many, including this one:THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Case No. IT-01-51-I (http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ii011122e.htm)

The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, pursuant to her authority under Article 18 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ("the Statute of the Tribunal"), charges:

SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC

with GENOCIDE, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, GRAVE BREACHES OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS and VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OR CUSTOMS OF WAR as set forth below:On the "still running Serbia" thing, you must be unaware that Milosevic is still head of the Socialist Party, which currently holds the balance of power, and which is likely to soon form a coalition government.

[Age Quod Agis]

You asked for a cite, remember?And thank you for that cite. You've helped dispel at least one portion of my ignorance. I wasn't aware of the extent of US involvement in the civil portion of the ICJ. Again, thank you for dispelling my ignorance on those points. And you make a fair point about the US disputing the ICJ's jurisdiction over its own citizens, but not over citizens of other countries.

But I appear to have been unclear on a few points:

1) Even if the US accepts ICJ jurisdiction on civil matters (I have a sneaking suspicion the US will accept jurisdiction only on matters that it doesn't find too offensive to its interests, as will every other State), they still won't submit to its jurisdiction on criminal matters. Merely allowing individuals to participate in criminal trials before the ICJ does not make US policy any more than allowing individuals to be participate in the Flat Earth Society. And it would be hypocritical (and arguably illegitimate) if they refused to recognize the ICJ's legitimacy over themselves, but at the same time used it when it benefitted them.

2) I know there are numerous forums that could try Hussein for war crimes. One of those forums are the Courts of Iraq. Current plans are to try Hussein in those Courts. So why isn't Hussein's eventual trial sufficient to show that the US was concerned about genocide in Iraq?

3) The US's failure to invoke the UN charter on genocide does not mean that the US does not care about genocide. Did every other country invoke the charter? Does your standard apply to other countries?No amount of weasling or flat-out lying on your part is going to change the simple fact that the convention was invoked, on multiple occassions and in multiple fora.He's on trial for Genocide. That's the practical upshot of the Genocide Convention being invoked. Do you deny that he's currently on trial? Do you deny that he's currently in UN custody? Or are you trying to claim that he hasn't been charged with genocide, on the basis of the indictment you cited? That indictment is only one of manyI was wrong about whether the UN convention had been invoked.

But I was right that the indictment was not the reason he stopped committing genocide. His indictment for genocide was merely a procedural prerequisite to trying him for genocide. It could have been done at any time, and it had no effect on his actions or on his eventual trial for genocide.

What stopped him from continuing to commit genocide were the actions of the UN and NATO peacekeepers keeping his troops at bay, the peace agreement brokered by US and (presumably) UN representatives, and the continued presence of NATO and UN troops that threatened the use of force if he didn't shape up.

Same thing with Saddam Hussein. Merely invoking the UN charter would not have done anything until he was deposed and arrested.On the "still running Serbia" thing, you must be unaware that Milosevic is still head of the Socialist Party, which currently holds the balance of power, and which is likely to soon form a coalition government.I'm certainly not informed enough to handicap the future of government in the Balkans, but who's this Vojislav Kostunica guy? Is he not currently the head of state? And what makes you think that Milosevic is still running the Serbian government?

[Daoloth]

Check these links:


Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/)

Iraq Body Count seems the best and most balanced...


Well, it counts Qusay Hussein's son among the innocent civilian dead, despite the fact that all accounts have him firing an AK-47 from under a bed. Furthermore, it counts Iraqi civilians killed by the loyalists, which doesn't help when one is counting those killed by the US or occupation forces.

[Uncivil]

Well, it counts Qusay Hussein's son among the innocent civilian dead, despite the fact that all accounts have him firing an AK-47 from under a bed. Furthermore, it counts Iraqi civilians killed by the loyalists, which doesn't help when one is counting those killed by the US or occupation forces.

To be fair, the site does say "deaths resulting from the military action in Iraq", not "civilian casualties".

The trouble with sites like that is they have a clear political bias, so its difficult to trust them completely. Scrolling through their database, I can see several places where they could easily be counting the same deaths more than once. Even allowing for that, its still a substantial body count. And it says nothing about the Iraqi military casualties (largely conscripts), and doesn't make any attempt to estimate casulties for unreported areas. Their methodology (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/background.htm#methods) does appear to be fairly sound.

[Desmostylus]

And thank you for that cite. You've helped dispel at least one portion of my ignorance. I wasn't aware of the extent of US involvement in the civil portion of the ICJ. Again, thank you for dispelling my ignorance on those points. And you make a fair point about the US disputing the ICJ's jurisdiction over its own citizens, but not over citizens of other countries.

<snip>

I was wrong about whether the UN convention had been invoked. Hopefully, having dealt with the purely factual matters regarding Bosnia, we can return to Iraq, which is the topic of this thread and which is covered in the rest of your post:2) I know there are numerous forums that could try Hussein for war crimes. One of those forums are the Courts of Iraq. Current plans are to try Hussein in those Courts. So why isn't Hussein's eventual trial sufficient to show that the US was concerned about genocide in Iraq?

3) The US's failure to invoke the UN charter on genocide does not mean that the US does not care about genocide. Did every other country invoke the charter? Does your standard apply to other countries?I was wrong about whether the UN convention had been invoked.

But I was right that the indictment was not the reason he stopped committing genocide. His indictment for genocide was merely a procedural prerequisite to trying him for genocide. It could have been done at any time, and it had no effect on his actions or on his eventual trial for genocide.

What stopped him from continuing to commit genocide were the actions of the UN and NATO peacekeepers keeping his troops at bay, the peace agreement brokered by US and (presumably) UN representatives, and the continued presence of NATO and UN troops that threatened the use of force if he didn't shape up.

Same thing with Saddam Hussein. Merely invoking the UN charter would not have done anything until he was deposed and arrested.You make a couple of points above.

Firstly, the technically correct and quite obvious point that an indictment or a resolution is only a step in a process, and not the entire process. You'd have won the argument with that point alone, if anyone apart from you had ever claimed that "all we had to do was invoke the UN convention on genocide, and the genocide would magically go away".

Secondly, the point that US is concerned with genocide now, so it's irrelevant that the US didn't show concern with genocide before. That's the bit that I have trouble with.

The US couldn't get support for a resolution on WMDs, and went ahead anyway. Turns out there were no WMDs. So the justification becomes genocide. Which the US hadn't raised previously with respect to Iraq. Why wasn't it raised previously? Surely, if the US had some evidence of genocide, it could easily have raised it in the Security Council, and bolstered its case for UN intervention.

You may think that such things are easily dismissed as matters of procedural nicety. Others do not, and suspect that the sudden US concern over genocide is as fabricated as its earlier concern over Iraq's WMDs.

[Age Quod Agis]

Secondly, the point that US is concerned with genocide now, so it's irrelevant that the US didn't show concern with genocide before.
. . .
So the justification becomes genocide. Which the US hadn't raised previously with respect to Iraq. Why wasn't it raised previously? Surely, if the US had some evidence of genocide, it could easily have raised it in the Security Council, and bolstered its case for UN intervention.I thought the subject was raised. From Bush's speech to the UN General Assembly (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html):In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state. Resolution 688 (http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0688.htm) uses the word "repression," which is likely something less than genocide. But it certainly shows that "the US really gave a rat's ass about preventing the deaths of Iraqis under Saddam."Firstly, the technically correct and quite obvious point that an indictment or a resolution is only a step in a process, and not the entire process. You'd have won the argument with that point alone, if anyone apart from you had ever claimed that "all we had to do was invoke the UN convention on genocide, and the genocide would magically go away".My point wasn't that invoking the UN conventions on genocide was only a step in the process. My point was that invoking the UN conventions on genocide has little or no effect on actually stopping the genocide. Invoking the charter doesn't remove the genocidal maniac from power, and it doesn't make it impossible (or even unlikely) that he will continue to commit genocide. It just makes it possible to prosecute him for that genocide after he's been removed from power by other means.

And you disputed that notion here:
Invoking the charter would have had no more effect than writing the word "genocide" on a peice of paper and then crossing it out with a big, red "X." Which is to say that it would have had no effect at all, except as a waste of time, effort, and ink. I take your point. I guess that'd explain why Milosovic is still running Serbia, instead of being on trial for Genocide. Oh, wait a minute...The fact that the charter was invoked doesn't explain why Milosevic is no longer running Serbia. The fact that the charter was invoked doesn't explain why Milosevic stopped committing genocide. The fact that the charter was invoked only explains the charges against Milosevic now that he's been removed from power.

[Desmostylus]

My point wasn't that invoking the UN conventions on genocide was only a step in the process. My point was that invoking the UN conventions on genocide has little or no effect on actually stopping the genocide. Invoking the charter doesn't remove the genocidal maniac from power, and it doesn't make it impossible (or even unlikely) that he will continue to commit genocide. It just makes it possible to prosecute him for that genocide after he's been removed from power by other means.I'm beginning to get the impression that you haven't even the vaguest idea of what you're talking about.

It's been obvious from the start that you didn't know much about the convention, but now it's become clear that you can't even read or understand what its title plainly says: "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm)". Allow me to quote some of it.Article 1

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 8

Any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III. Comprende? If you want the UN to act to stop genocide, or if you want to stop the genocide yourself (yourself being a party to the convention), this is the instrument that you use.

That's not to suggest that there aren't other ways of doing it, of course. You could, for example, make a diplomatic approach, and it might work. Probably wouldn't, but the existence of the convention doesn't prevent you from trying. Or you could, say, make up a bunch of bullshit about weapons of mass destruction, invade, have everyone learn that you lied about the weapons of mass destruction, then point to some vague unproven statements about totalitarianism, and claim that your real intention was to prevent genocide. There could be some credibility problems with that.

[Age Quod Agis]

It's been obvious from the start that you didn't know much about the convention, but now it's become clear that you can't even read or understand what its title plainly says: "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm)".Oh, well, if the title says its on the prevention of genocide, then invoking it must prevent genocide, right?

And I suppose invoking the Patriot Act makes you a patriot.

Except it doesn't. You can invoke the UN charter on the prevention of genocide 'til the cows come home, but until you take some action to prevent genocide -- through diplomacy or the military or humanitarian aid -- then you're not going to stop genocide.Comprende? If you want the UN to act to stop genocide, or if you want to stop the genocide yourself (yourself being a party to the convention), this is the instrument that you use.Ahhh, now I see. So if we had invoked the UN charter on the prevention of genocide, would Saddam Hussein have stopped committing genocide? Would invoking the UN charter have unified the world behind an arsenal against Hussein? Would France and Germany's opposition to military action folded before the mighty power of the UN convention on the prevention of genocide? Would you have supported military action in Iraq if Bush had invoked the UN convention on genocide?

For some reason, I suspect the answer to those questions is "No."

And I'm still waiting for you to explain why the US couldn't have cared about genocide unless they invoked the UN charter on genocide. I just pointed out that Bush spoke to the UN about repression and human rights abuses before the war. So clearly your argument that it was made up after the fact has been proven false.

Are you planning to sprout another leg to stand on?

[Desmostylus]

Ahhh, now I see. So if we had invoked the UN charter on the prevention of genocide, would Saddam Hussein have stopped committing genocide? Would invoking the UN charter have unified the world behind an arsenal against Hussein? Would France and Germany's opposition to military action folded before the mighty power of the UN convention on the prevention of genocide? Would you have supported military action in Iraq if Bush had invoked the UN convention on genocide?This is just about the most stupid argument I've ever come across.

You see, invoking the spectre of weapons of mass destruction didn't achieve any of those things either, now did it? People wanted proof before jumping on the Bush machine.

If Bush had invoked the convention on genocide, people still would've wanted proof, and if Bush had any, he could've shown it. If the proof was convincing, and the extent of the problem serious enough, it's entirely conceivable that UN backed military action could have resulted. But Bush would've had to prove the claim beforehand.

If he'd at least formally made the claim, argued his case and had it rejected, he might be on morally firmer ground now. Note that all the crap Bush said about "gassing the Kurds" and "mass graves" does not prove an on-going progam of genocide which requires urgent intervention. It indicates things that happened over a decade ago which the US did nothing to prevent at the time.

You haven't proved an on-going program of genocide either, you simply made the claim that any deaths caused by the sanctions, which the US wouldn't allow to be lifted, were entirely Saddam's fault.

[Desmostylus]

BTW, it probably wouldn't have taken the UN very long to reach a decision.

Bush: There's a program of genocide in Iraq. We must take action to save the Iraqi people from Saddam.

UN: Very well, what do you propose as a solution?

Bush: Cluster bomb them, and start a civil war. Who's with me?

[Age Quod Agis]

Bush: Cluster bomb them, and start a civil war. Who's with me?Wow! That made me laugh! I"m envisioning Bush a la Bluto in "Animal House:" "Who's with me?!?" [Bounds off assembly floor and out of UN meeting hall. No one follows.]

There may not have been ongoing genocide when the coalition troops invaded Iraq, but there were ongoing human rights abuses. Maybe that's why Bush talked about the human rights abuses in his UN address, his state of the union, and in his speech to the nation on the eve of war. Maybe that's why he didn't invoke the UN convention on genocide. But either way, you've clearly demonstrated that you would have criticized him no matter what he did with the UN convention on genocide.

Thanks again for the info on the US's role in the ICJ.

[Age Quod Agis]

you simply made the claim that any deaths caused by the sanctions, which the US wouldn't allow to be lifted, were entirely Saddam's fault.I also want to point out that I never said this. In fact, I acknowledged that all sanctions have the effect of harming the common populace more than their governments, and that I almost always oppose sanctions for that reason.

This type of clear misrepresentation is a bit surprising from someone that seemed to take so much offense to my mistake on the US's role in the ICJ.