Wars and Conflicts permalink
War Casualties?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Wednesday, 21st July 2010
Just wondering if y'all have reliable estimates of casualty figures from the Iraq and Afghan wars?
-
Message 2
Posted by cmedog47 (U3614178) on Wednesday, 21st July 2010
The first casualty of war is the truth. Besides, one doesn't win a battle or a war by counting the dead.
Let the dead count the dead. -
Message 3
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Thursday, 22nd July 2010
"Besides, one doesn't win a battle or a war by counting the dead."
What does that mean?
So how many have died? Civilians first, US/UK second and Guerrillas third...any idea? -
Message 4
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Thursday, 22nd July 2010
We might get accurate figures for the Western troops, but nobody seems to know (or care very much!) about the civilians / insurgents.
We are back to those old battles of the Middle ages - 'Casualties' consist of the important people, and nobody bothers to count the dead serfs or men-at-arms.
Iraquis don't vote in US elections, so their casualties are not important. -
Message 5
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Thursday, 22nd July 2010
These are some of the figures I've managed to weed out of the welter of flim-flam:
From the Lancet:
The first survey[1] published on 29 October 2004, estimated 98,000 excess Iraqi deaths (with a range of 8,000 to 194,000...from the 2003 invasion ...The authors described this as a conservative estimate, because it excluded the extreme statistical outlier data from Falluja. If the Falluja cluster were included, the mortality estimate would increase to 150% over pre-invasion rates.
The second survey[2][3][4] published on 11 October 2006, estimated 654,965 excess deaths related to the war, or 2.5% of the population, through the end of June 2006...31% (186,318) of those were attributed to the Coalition, 24% (144,246) to others, and 46% (276,472) unknown.
On Friday, 14 September 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent polling agency located in London, published estimates of the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[1] At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580) -
Message 6
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
"On Friday, 14 September 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent polling agency located in London, published estimates of the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[1] At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580)"
So if that figure is correct up to september 07, there were at that stage over one million innocent civilians killed, many of them by the US/UK; is it any wonder that they want to hide such appalling statistics? -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
Analysis on casualties can vary. From exaemple from within the more than 1 million dead, US official might say that their share is only the 1/3 since the rest are deaths among battling internal fractions (like sunni & shiite fractions etc.). However even if so, one would wonder if that would happen if US had not intervened. Most probably not. On the other side, don't the deaths of people by cancer, the failed births etc. count on the number of dead added on top of the 1 million?
It is quite difficult to establish. For the time being 1 million dead is an appaling figure and hangs from the US necks - that to remind to people that fascist violence has not ended but is omnipresence and especially attached to the US external politics. Any US citizen (and there are millions of them) that favours such acts is no different to the nazi-obedient Germans. -
Message 8
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
"It is quite difficult to establish. For the time being 1 million dead is an appaling figure and hangs from the US necks - that to remind to people that fascist violence has not ended but is omnipresence and especially attached to the US external politics. Any US citizen (and there are millions of them) that favours such acts is no different to the nazi-obedient Germans."
I agree, also applies to the UK... -
Message 9
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
also applies to the UKÂ
Very much so.
Anthony Blair was responsible for at least 3 illegal wars of aggression (Yugoslavia 1999, Afghanistan 2001 and Iraq 2003). In the US, on the other hand, William Clinton was involved in Yugoslavia while George W Bush was involved in Afghanistan and Iraq.
If you include the so-called 'humanitarian intervention' in Sierra Leone in 2000 (in which America took no part) then that increases Blair's tally to 4 wars of aggression. An audit of all the casualties (military and civilian) of all of Blair's illegal wars will be a stomach-churning reckoning on the much-vaunted 'ethical foreign policy' promised by New Labour in 1997. -
Message 10
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Friday, 23rd July 2010
If you feel like it, you can also blame NuLabour for the chaos in Mugabe's Zimbabwe, on account of how Clare Short pulled out of an existing British commitment to help fund an orderly land-redistribution programme...
What puzzles me is why Our Boys and Girls were sent so far away on 'humanitarian' missions when the most appalling atrocities were being perpetrated under our very noses for decades, in the form of the Irish Child Abuse Holocaust, during which tens of thousands of orphans and other vulnerable children were systematically raped and tortured while the crypto-theocratic Irish state turned a blind eye. Why on earth didn't we do the decent thing and send our forces into the Republic to sort that out...?
-
Message 11
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
...a new thread perhaps catigern???
-
Message 12
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
Surely Catigern the lesson from the failure of the UK's neo-imperialist policy over the last 15 years of so is that it is neo-imperialism itself which is the problem.
It's bizarre to conclude that because UK military aggression has failed in Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq then the UK should have invaded, or should now invade, Zimbabwe and the Republic of Ireland. Besides - the Irish seem to to dealing with their internal problems just fine themselves without the need for violent intervention from a patronising UK.
Maybe the countries of the UK should finally put imperialism to bed and we should begin concentrating on making our own countries excellent ones in which to live. Heaven knows there is plenty of work for us to be getting on with in that respect. -
Message 13
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
Surely Catigern the lesson from the failure of the UK's neo-imperialist policy over the last 15 years of so is that it is neo-imperialism itself which is the problem.Â
Perhaps it's the 'neo-' bit that is the problem.
It's bizarre to conclude that because UK military aggression has failed in Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq then the UK should have invaded, or should now invade, Zimbabwe and the Republic of Ireland.Â
The sort of pussy-footing that the NuLabour politicians insisted upon hardly ranks as 'UK military aggression' if you look at the big picture of British military history.
I didn't advocate the invasion of Zimbabwe, just pointed out that Labour's smug self-righteousness helped to provoke Mugabe.
Besides - the Irish seem to to dealing with their internal problems just fine themselves...Â
Tell me you're joking! The last I heard, the Irish state's response to the revelation of its clerical Child Abuse Holocaust was to STRENGTHEN its anti-blasphemy laws that empower clerics.
Maybe the countries of the UK should finally put imperialism to bed...Â
Impossible. England and Scotland, at least, were created and are maintained by pure imperialism. Any distinction between 'internal' and 'external' use of threatened or actual violence is entirely artificial. You simply can't have a nation state without imperialism. -
Message 14
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
"Tell me you're joking! The last I heard, the Irish state's response to the revelation of its clerical Child Abuse Holocaust was to STRENGTHEN its anti-blasphemy laws that empower clerics."
Not true C, priests have been brought to justice and compensation has been given; the church is in very weak position because of its past misdemeanors; calls have been made for the resignation of the archbishop of Dublin. They are being forced to face up to their crimes... -
Message 15
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 16
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 24th July 2010
If the ‘neo’ part of ‘neo-imperialism’ is the problem Catigern then this would suggest that imperialism per se is not a problem. In which case maybe Iraq and Afghanistan should be declared UK overseas territories to be ruled by governors. Why stop there? Maybe the UK should also revoke the independence of Pakistan and India etc and deny the right of people in those countries to vote.
Blair’s illegal wars can't be described as 'pussy-footing’. For example in the 1999 attack on Yugoslavia, the UK air force was ordered to drop more tons of ordnance in 1 month alone then had been dropped during the whole 18 years of Conservative rule between 1979 and 1997 - and that included the Falklands war.
I’m not sure how the UK Labour government ‘helped to provoke’ Mugabe. The internal affairs of independent Zimbabwe are none of the UK government’s business. What part of the word ‘independent’ is not understood here?
To say that the anti-blasphemy laws in the Republic of Ireland were a ‘response’ to the child abuse scandal is a lame attempt at linkage. That’s a bit like someone saying that the religiously aggravated offences provisions of the UK’s Crime and Disorder Act were responsible for the murders of Baby Peter and Victoria Climbie etc and also the child abuses committed by Anglican clergy:
The statement that ‘England and Scotland, at least, were created and are maintained by pure imperialism’ would seem to equate imperialism with ‘state power’ or even ‘state terror’. To then go on to say that ‘imperialism’ is ‘threatened or actual violence’ would suggest the latter – i.e. state terror. That is a bizarre definition of imperialism.
A better definition of imperialism is where the government of one territory assumes the right to rule a second territory in which the inhabitants of that second territory have lesser or no corresponding civil rights with regard to the first territory and its inhabitants.
Also (with regard to the UK) the idea that ‘you simply can't have a nation state without imperialism’ is irrelevant. Not only does this warp the meaning of imperialism (see above) but also the UK is not a ‘nation state’ and never has been. The UK is a multi-national parliamentary monarchy comprising several nations. -
Message 17
Posted by ShaneONeal (U14303502) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
"Shane, have you paid any particular attention to the number of German women and children that were DELIBERATELY murdered by the RAF during WW2?
Same thing for the DELIBERATELY murdered Kenyans in in British concentration camps in the mid 1950's. Not collateral deaths mind you, deliberate killings. R."
Indeed, I wonder if it is anti-British to ask how many innocent civilians have been killed by British forces in the 20th century in total and why these figures aren't relevant to history as taught in schools?
Have such estimates no relevance, are those millions (?) killed worth less attention than other civilian casualties (i.e. 9/11 etc)? -
Message 18
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 19
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
The Allies' bombing of Germany is a contentious issue, but I don't think it could ever be said to be under-discussed. As most people are aware the USAAF played its part in causing the death of civilians as a result of area bombing in Europe.
I think education in the US differs from state to state, but perhaps you can tell us which of the states have as part of their curriculum an examination of the USAAF's area bombing of Japan (500,000 civilian deaths) or SAC's indiscriminate bombing of neutral Cambodia (600,000 civilan deaths)?
I'm sure you can teach us a lot about openness and rigorous self-examination. -
Message 20
Posted by stalti (U14278018) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
hi Rudolph
how is the killing of german civilians in ww2 any different to the "precision bombing" of german civilians by the usaaf (ie within 1 mile of targets)
or the precision bombings in the korean war
or the wonderful carpet bombings by b52s of cambodia and north vietnam (wont discuss agent orange)
or the shock awe and distruction of the gulf war
or the drone attacks in pakistan/afghanistan as we speak
did the us have its fingers crossed (fainites)so it didnt actually count
are u buckskin in disguise ??
st -
Message 21
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Sunday, 25th July 2010
If your thinking 300,000 You've been reading too much Caroline Elkins.
She based her conclusions on the sort of mathamatical performance that if you pulled it with your bank you'd get 2 years for fraud but at Harvard it seems gets you an associate professorship and a pulitzer prize. She seems to have the standard left wing knee jerk anti imperialist (lets just say anti brit its easier to spell.) attitude. See the links below for a clearer explanation of the Elkins farce including some of her less than scientific research methods.
The real casualty figure including killed in action and deaths in the camps is probably somewhere between 11,000 and 30,000. -
Message 22
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 26th July 2010
Why have Rudolphs posts been pulled?
Santa complaining about internet abuse again? -
Message 23
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Monday, 26th July 2010
Hi all,
This is rather too current affairs for an history board.
Thread closed.
Cheers
Andrew
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.