Did any US bombs kill any babies in Iraq? Could someone provide a cite that a US military action/bomb killed a baby in Iraq.
Assuming all civilian casualties from bombs are mistakes, and aren’t somehow targetting only adults, then some percentage of those casualties pretty much has to be babies. The estimates I’ve heard are between 10 and 20 thousand civilian deaths, so probability alone says there virtually has to be many babies in that mix.
Is anybody actually claiming no babies were killed?
Here is a database summarizing media reports that total more than 11,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Not all of these may be accurate, and some were not due to U.S./coalition action. However, there can be little doubt that there have been many thousands of civilian deaths from coalition actions during the conflict.
These reports mostly do not indicate the age of the casualties. However, what do you think the odds are that not one of these many thousands was a baby? Do you think we have some kind of magic baby-avoiding bomb?
I know that it’s no cite, but I remember news footage of a father carrying his baby that had been killed in the bombings and accusing the coalition forces.
I’ll see whether I can find a link.
The folllowing link shows images of civilian casualties in Iraq, including babies and small children.
Click on the link PICTURES: “Victims of the Anglo-American Aggression.” (Seventh link on the page). WARNING! EXTREMELY GRAPHIC AND DISTURBING IMAGES!
While this is clearly an anti-war site, and again not all images may be the result of coalition bombing, I would think not even the most ardent supporter of the war would contend that such things did not occur.
“The blast in his home killed his father, siblings and pregnant mother.”
" ‘Can you help get my arms back? Do you think the doctors can get me another pair of hands?’ he had asked from his bed.
‘If I don’t get a pair of hands, I will commit suicide,’ he told a Reuters reporter."
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/iraqwar/story/0,4395,183591,00.html
[Mod hat on]
Kel. This might be the forum for your continuing, poorly-worded questions.
Moved from GQ.
samclem GQ moderator
[Mod hat off]
Americans are bad.
Hey! I just moved the thread. Why you dissing me, man?
Oh! Now I get it.
You’re telling me that I’m BAD, ala Steve Martin and Richard Pryor.
Cool.
I’m BAD. Yeah! I’m BAD.
Also Michael Jackson.
Fahrenheit 9/11 shows footage of of dead children and babies killed in the invasion.
Now that this is in a more appropriate place, could you please explain what kind of fuckwitted moron actually imagines that the kind of bombing campaign we carried out in Iraq didn’t kill a single baby?
The same kind of fuckwitted moron who supports Bush’s Damn Fool War™, I’d wager.
Either that, or he’s got some overblown notion of “smart bombs” being bombs that can actually identify adult enemy combatants and detonate in a way so that they’re the only ones who get killed…
There has never been a war in which babies were not victims, but to make an issue of it as if American GIs are seeking out infants and murdering them is simply wrong. To make an issue of the obvious, that babies must be among the civilian casualties, is simply stupid.
I second that.
You can’t judge whether a war is just or unjust by this inflamatory, simplistic metric.
The sad fact is, babies die in all wars. Lots of them died in WWII, but many more would have died if that war hadn’t been waged.
And just because the United States military, to its great credit, actively seeks to avoid civilian deaths doesn’t mean they can always be avoided, or that our military is uniquely brutal if such deaths occur.
Really? Could you share the reasoning behind that statement. I don’t know the exact figures but in WWII died at least 40 million persons, a high percentage of those were babies. Hitler was brutal but war is even more.
WWII was one of the few wars that have to be fought, the alternative would have been horrible… but not blodier. At least imho.
The reasoning really isn’t that hard to understand.
Hitler and Japan started the war. Bringing it to as quick a conclusion as possible brought the killing of babies to a stop.
Babies killed by Allied action were killed because of a “total war” scenario, which entailed targeting civilians as a part of the war effort. This is brutal, but the United States military doesn’t deliberately target civilians in this way anymore.
It’s a sight better, though, than the rape of Nanking and the Holocaust. And if the Holocaust hadn’t been interrupted at the point it was, more babies would have died, not through war, but through genocide.
It’s nice to look at the world in such idealistic terms, that babies shouldn’t ever be killed. And I agree, they shouldn’t be, noit ideally. But military paralysis brought on by the desire not to kill them would bring gruesome results of its own.
You know, there really are enough solid arguements on which to justify opposition to the Iraq war without falling back to the “American soldiers are baby Killers!” fucknugget line of reasoning.
You don’t know the exact figures, but a high percentage of those killed were babies!
And you stand behind that statement 100%? :rolleyes: