# Bush's Innocent Civilian Body Count Vs. OBL's **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 17, 2004, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-innocent-civilian-body-count-vs-obls/234771 "2004-03-17T02:43:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-innocent-civilian-body-count-vs-obls/234771/81 "2004-03-20T09:14:27Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Well…yes. Why can’t or couldn’t the UN be more pro-active in some of these terrible places like in Africa? Don’t you feel bad for all those poor people? What exactly is the UN for if not to right wrongs and fix problems like that? Well I agree with you there. I _would_ like to see the U.N. be more active. But how can you say they do _nothing_? You admitted that there have been successful U.N. peacekeeping missions, didn’t you? One can certainly argue that the U.N. isn’t powerful enough, or has had mishaps, but can you really say they’ve done _nothing_? BTW, if this is still _Mrs._ xtsime, could you please indicate so? If you want to participate (and we would love to have you), you might consider signing up with your own name. > [@](#): > > Well, I like Bush. A lot actually. Well, there’s no accounting for taste.😉 > [@](#): > > But I’m not going to say that I think his motives are pure and benevolent. There were certainly reasons for going into Iraq that weren’t benevolent, but there were some that were good too. On balance I think that the Iraqi people are better off. However, I was against the war because I don’t think America should get involved with the worlds problems. Iraq had nothing to do with the US, so I think the US should have stayed out of it. Whether the Iraqis are better off remains to be seen, but I agree with you that the U.S. ought not to be responsible for righting all the wrongs in the world. And no, there were NO good reasons for what the U.S. did. None. The way I see it (and I think most of the world sees it as well), is that it’s not gonna work for any country to just take it upon themselves to invade another country (contrived “coalitions” notwithstanding). Yeah, _maybe_, in theory, the people of the invaded country could end up better off. But if we just leave the decision up to the invading country to devise whatever justification they wish, surely you can see it’s not a good way to run things. Even Hitler had his phony pretenses for attacking other countries. No, I’m sorry - the only way that makes sense is not to allow unilateral invasions for the purpose of conquest or regime change - EVER. > [@](#): > > As to the second part of your statement, its the way all countries function. Name a nation that HASN’T played real-politic games in the past. Again, I sense a dual standard when its the US that does this, than when its France, or Germany, or England, etc. Why is that? What dual standard? Please give examples of France, Germany, and England being allowed to do things that the U.S. was _not_ allowed to do. You _really_ don’t think they’d catch any heat if they invaded a sovereign country right now? > [@](#): > > Millions have starved to death in countries like North Korea. Millions have died in Africa from disease, starvation and execution because men with guns decided they want to be the boss and don’t care who has to pay the price. Yes, and what has the oh so benevolent Bush Administration done to help them? Funny how the countries _without_ oil don’t seem to be entitled to the U.S.'s guardian angel services. > [@](#): > > Its chaos there…why can’t the UN help, or seemingly do anything about it? The main criticism I hear is that they don’t have enough power. Question for you: When the most powerful member nation delares the U.N. “irrelevant”, would you say this would tend to _increase_ or _decrease_ the U.N.'s power? ---
**Author:** ![vasyachkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c5a1d2/32.png) [@vasyachkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vasyachkin)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-innocent-civilian-body-count-vs-obls/234771/82 "2004-03-20T12:04:59Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > **vasyachkin** : I’m going to assume that your post is sarcastic because I would hate to think anyone really thinks that way. (It’s alright for the U.S. to act like a rogue state and invade another country because we want their resources?) whether you like it or not we ARE a rogue state, and we only care out people of our own country, i am suprised that we don’t execute illegal immigrants in the street by burning them alive, after all - they can’t vote for Bush. and no, i am not sarcastic, that’s just what i think. ---
**Author:** ![vasyachkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/c5a1d2/32.png) [@vasyachkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vasyachkin)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-innocent-civilian-body-count-vs-obls/234771/83 "2004-03-20T12:09:35Z")
> [@Spectre of Pithecanthropus](#): > > Of course, why even have a military at all, since peace is always the answer? No matter what a government of thugs and fascists does to their own people, it’s still just their internal business, right? > > What amazes me is how despotic regimes manage to tread the world stage and carry an air of legitimacy and decency. Just by trading his cammos for natty suits and gentlemanly umbrellas, Saddam transformed himself into a “statesman”. Iraq sent teams to the Olympics, who marched into the arenas behind their colors just like any other country’s team. But many of those athletes got imprisoned and tortured for losing, after returning home. Frankly I’m glad we got those guys out of power; it’s the one of the few things on which I actually agree with GWB, whom I otherwise dislike. again, i was not being sarcastic, that is pretty much how i feel myself - its a good exercise for the army and on the whole what we’re doing is not so utterly evil, and if it gets us some OIL then why not. my mistake was to think that we ( the us people ) will see some benefits from that oil, but instead cheney and halliburton will pocket all the profits they made by investing our money they stole through taxes. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-innocent-civilian-body-count-vs-obls/234771/84 "2004-03-20T18:26:14Z")
Sorry about the confusion blowero as to who was using my account. I’ve urged my wife to get her own account, but she thinks people on the SDMB are too ‘mean’. 🙂 Thanks for not handling her too roughly. Kind of straying off topic here though as the thread was about Bush vs ObL with respect to body count. > [@blowero](#): > > Well I agree with you there. I would like to see the U.N. be more active. But how can you say they do nothing? You admitted that there have been successful U.N. peacekeeping missions, didn’t you? One can certainly argue that the U.N. isn’t powerful enough, or has had mishaps, but can you really say they’ve done nothing? I think she meant that she has never seen the UN invade nations to depose some of these guys that upset her. Personally, I think thats a GOOD thing, as I’m unsure if having the UN invade nations and fix the world is any better than having the US do it. > [@blowero](#): > > Well, there’s no accounting for taste. Well, I agree with you here. I have no idea why she (and my father) love Bush so much. But they do…they think he’s a ‘great president’. _snort_ I have to step lightly in my own house when I start ranting about Bush and his latest capers. Back to the OP > [@legion](#): > > Allow me to describe an imaginary scenario. A target is identified that can be taken out with a “smart” bomb from 30,000 feet with no casualties to your forces, but will almost certainly result in 30 civilian casualties. Alternatively, a company of ground troops could be sent in to neutralise the target, but there is a good chance that they may incur 5-10 casualties. The problem with your scenerio is that it doesn’t take into account how many civilian casualties would be incured from those ground troops. Also, its fairly unrealistic. Usually the reason you use smart bombs in civilian areas is because there are military targets in those areas that you can’t get too any other way. Take the initial strikes into Baghdad in the Iraq war for example. Early in the war we were trying to take out command and control…thats when the majority of the smart bombs were used in civilian areas in the cities (used because SH had put his command and control IN the cities and in civilian areas). It wasn’t feasible at all to ‘send in ground troops’ to those areas at that time, but it was essential to disrupt Iraqs command and control…to shorten the war and keep the Iraqi’s off balance. Had we NOT done that, the casualty figures would have been a hell of a lot more, not just for us but on the civilian side as well (and probably even the Iraqi military would have taken more casualties too as it would have been a long drawn out and grinding war of attrition), as we would have had to grind our way through Iraq instead of being able to make a lightning ground advance and win the war early. Again, I agree with you that the Iraq war was stupid. I agree that the US shouldn’t have gone into Iraq. However, once we DID go commit to the fighting part, it would be insane not to fight to win as rapidly and at as little cost as we could. I don’t think anyone has accused the administration or the US military of using excess force or violence in Iraq. The accusations seem to be of the ‘why were we there in the first place’ variety. > [@legion](#): > > OK. My imaginary scenario was very glib, but the fact remains that the more you believe you can wage war with little or no casualties to yourselves, the more civilians you are going to kill, and the more attractive war will become. I refuse to believe that a country a great as America really believes in the “kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out” philosophy. Your scenerio isn’t glib, its just unrealistic, nor does it take into account all the factors as I said above. You seem to be under the impression that, if we used ground forces instead of smart bombs, that this would reduce civilian casualties. Why you think this is a mystery to me. Do you REALLY think that tanks, helicopter gunships, artillary, and soldiers on the ground are somehow going to inflict less casualties in civilian areas (if thats where the enemy military is) that percision guided munitions?? After all, if you have to go INTO the cities to dig the enemy out you are going to cause a hell of a lot of carnage…especially if you avoided taking out the enemies command and control because you didn’t want to hurt civilians. That means the enemies defenses are going to be a lot stronger, he’ll be able to move his troops around better, and he’s going to be able to mount a much more effective defense. If we REALLY wanted to ‘kill emall, let god sort em out’ then Iraq would currently be smoking glass. Even if we stuck with only convention weapons, if this was REALLY our philosophy we could have destroyed Iraq with almost no casualties on the US side by simply indiscriminately bombing the shit out of them until they surrendered. This, of course, would have caused 10’s or even 100’s of thousands of casualties and completely wrecked the country, but we COULD have done it…easily. However, we didn’t do this. Its not our way. -XT ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 9:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-innocent-civilian-body-count-vs-obls/234771/85 "2004-03-21T09:11:09Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Sorry about the confusion blowero as to who was using my account. I’ve urged my wife to get her own account, but she thinks people on the SDMB are too ‘mean’. 🙂 Wait, she thinks _we’re_ too mean, and she married YOU?😉 > [@](#): > > Thanks for not handling her too roughly. I thought she was doing very well; too bad she doesn’t want to join up. > [@](#): > > Kind of straying off topic here though as the thread was about Bush vs ObL with respect to body count. Yeah, it kinda got off track - guess you can blame Mrs. xtisme.😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bushs-innocent-civilian-body-count-vs-obls/234771.md?page=4)