# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  The toll of the Iraq war

## Spexvet

1,150   Killed
7,500   wounded in combat
20,245  airlifted out of Iraq due to wound, injury, or illness
??????   Iraqis killed, wounded, or injured?

When will it end? What will be the human cost?

----------


## Joann Raytar

The Human Toll of Terrorism
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/humantoll/

List of Terrorism Incidents
http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/L/L...-incidents.htm

I would answer your question with a question.  Can terrorism be stopped?

----------


## chm2023

> The Human Toll of Terrorism
> http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/humantoll/
> 
> List of Terrorism Incidents
> http://www.worldhistory.com/wiki/L/L...-incidents.htm


Interesting.  From 92 thru 00 (Clinton years) a total of 49 incidents over 8 years.  Since Bush took office, nearly 4 years, 35 incidents.  So are we safer today or not?  Do the math.

----------


## shanbaum

> I would answer your question with a question. Can terrorism be stopped?


Do you really believe that the war in Iraq will somehow "stop" terrorism?

Given that the Administration calls the "enemy" in Iraq "terrorists" - would you say that there's more or less terrorism in the world today than before the invasion?

----------


## chm2023

What's really nuts about this:  today we are attacking Samarra (and make no mistake, it is we, not the vaporish Iraq security forces).  Do we think that the people in Samarra have WMD?  that they attacked the WTC?  So we are bombing them because?   They don't want democracy?  This is getting a little reminiscent of Vietnam, "we had to destroy the village to save it".:hammer:

----------


## Joann Raytar

#1: As long as there is a disgruntled government out there somewhere without the money to buy the big guns or train and arm a real military, no terrorism won't be stopped.

#2: The same.  I do believe in cutting terrorism off at its piggy bank; however, I think we are paying to much attention to pocket change. With the exception of Afganistan, I think we are applying the same logic we apply to the war on drugs. You go after enough of the corner dealers and people buying and hope the big bad guys get scared and give up.




> Do you really believe that the war in Iraq will somehow "stop" terrorism?
> 
> Given that the Administration calls the "enemy" in Iraq "terrorists" - would you say that there's more or less terrorism in the world today than before the invasion?

----------


## shanbaum

> I think we are applying the same logic we apply to the war on drugs. You go after enough of the corner dealers and people buying and hope the big bad guys get scared and give up.


And do you think that's been an _effective_ strategy?

----------


## Joann Raytar

Hardly. After 20 or so years, it's made it worse.
http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

That's the problem I see with Iraq.  How much of a contributor to terrorism was/is Iraq?  We know that they harboured terrorists but aren't there other countries that have done more in support of terrorism?  Where is the big money coming from? Why aren't we confronting these countries? Politics?

----------


## rinselberg

> Today we are attacking Samarra (and make no mistake, it's the U.S. -- not the vaporish Iraqi security forces.) Do we think that the people in Samarra have WMD? That they attacked the WTC?  So we are bombing them because? They don't want democracy? This is getting a little reminiscent of Vietnam, "we had to destroy the village in order to save it."


Hello chm2023. I can't find the exact post, but didn't you remark just the other day about what you feel would be the contradiction of having elections where parts of the electorate cannot vote because they are in "no-go" areas? Samarra's just the first in a series of moves that the Coalition has to make to eliminate the "no-go" areas before the elections. _Sounds like a plan to me._


For some of the little known history behind CENTCOM's famous deck of Fifty-Two Most Wanted Iraqis playing cards, use this *Web link* to my recent post:

*Most Wanted Iraqis playing cards: You never count your Iraqis when your're sittin' at the table*

----------


## Spexvet

> Hardly. After 20 or so years, it's made it worse.
> http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html
> 
>  That's the problem I see with Iraq. How much of a contributor to terrorism was/is Iraq? We know that they harboured terrorists but aren't there other countries that have done more in support of terrorism? Where is the big money coming from? Why aren't we confronting these countries? Politics?


 11 of 19 hijackers on 9/11 from Saudi Arabia. AQ leaders found in Pakistan (reporter Pearl killed there as well). North Korea with nuclear weapons. Iran deveoping WMDs. Russia has huge amounts of nuclear weapons unnaccounted for. All top priority situations. Maybe Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time, or something.

----------


## rinselberg

*Nine-Eleven hijackers from Saudi Arabia.* Since Nine-Eleven, the Saudi government has been increasingly cooperative in the global campaign against terrorism.

*Al-Qaeda leaders found in Pakistan.* Pakistan has been finding and arresting them.

*North Korea with nuclear weapons.* Negotiations continue. Bush administration favors multi-lateral negotiations including Japan, China and South Korea. NK (North Koreal) very risky target for any kind of preemptive military attack. NK has large numbers of well protected artillery tubes already in place that can strike the South Korean capital. In the case of NK, the risks of preemption are much larger than the predictions and even the current reality of Iraq.

*Russia has huge numbers of unaccountable nuclear weapons.* Weapons? I doubt it. Certain radioactive materials, especially non-fissile materials such as discarded medical materials, known to be unaccounted for. Chemical and biological WMD materials, also unaccounted for. The Bush administration already has a cooperative program in place for this with Russia. Critics have suggested more funding for it. (Maybe after the Iraqi insurgency chills out.)

*Iran developing WMD.* Growing diplomatic pressure from the Bush administration and European Union. Multi-lateral and U.N. negotiations with Iran continue. Dispute with Iran over WMD has not stalled without progress for nearly as many years as did similar dispute with Iraq.

*John Kerry:* _The wrong candidate with the wrong foreign policy at the wrong time._

----------


## Spexvet

> *Nine-Eleven hijackers from Saudi Arabia.* Since Nine-Eleven, the Saudi government has been increasingly cooperative in the global campaign against terrorism.




Iraq was "cooperating" in a similar way. They allowed inspectors in. Has Saudi Arabia allowed AQ inspectors in? If not, should we invade?




> *Al-Qaeda leaders found in Pakistan.* Pakistan has been finding and arresting them.


Pakistan is still a hornet's nest of radical Islamist fundamentalists. They are not doing enough and they were/are a bigger threat than Iraq to our national security.




> *North Korea with nuclear weapons.* Negotiations continue. Bush administration favors multi-lateral negotiations including Japan, China and South Korea. NK (North Koreal) very risky target for any kind of preemptive military attack. NK has large numbers of well protected artillery tubes already in place that can strike the South Korean capital. In the case of NK, the risks of preemption are much larger than the predictions and even the current reality of Iraq.


OK, so we negotiate with NK, who have WMD, yet invade IRAQ, who didn't have WMD:hammer: 




> *Russia has huge numbers of unaccountable nuclear weapons.* Weapons? I doubt it. Certain radioactive materials, especially non-fissile materials such as discarded medical materials, known to be unaccounted for. Chemical and biological WMD materials, also unaccounted for. The Bush administration already has a cooperative program in place for this with Russia. Critics have suggested more funding for it. (Maybe after the Iraqi insurgency chills out.)


Let me rephrase: "WMD" instead of nuclear. So fund it.




> *Iran developing WMD.* Growing diplomatic pressure from the Bush administration and European Union. Multi-lateral and U.N. negotiations with Iran continue. Dispute with Iran over WMD has not stalled without progress for nearly as many years as did similar dispute with Iraq.


Again, why negotiate with one nation, and invade another. Could it be Iraq was seen to be an easy target by W's administration? Personal grudge? The rationale does not fit the behavior of our government.

----------


## chm2023

[QUOTE=rinselberg]Hello chm2023. I can't find the exact post, but didn't you remark just the other day about what you feel would be the contradiction of having elections where parts of the electorate cannot vote because they are in "no-go" areas? Samarra's just the first in a series of moves that the Coalition has to make to eliminate the "no-go" areas before the elections. _Sounds like a plan to me._


Sounds like idiocy to me.  We'll see.  My money still says in a year we will look back on this time in Iraq as the good old days.  Remember, guerillas don't have to defeat their enemy, they have to win the people.

Also, we are now officially at war in Iraq longer than we were in WWI.

----------


## coda

While I'm not sure the specific tactics are what we should be doing (air strikes in an area populated with 'friendlies' or at least non-combatents is a highly questionable move) I do believe that we need to take complete control of the 'no-go' areas within Iraq.  

The way to win the 'hearts and minds' of the Iraqis and by extension the Arab world as a whole is through rapid and complete rebuilding of infrastructure and increasing safety for the general population.  We can't do that if there are regions of Iraq controlled by disruptive (read old school bathists and/or islamic fundamentalist terrorists) forces.

I'm frankly somewhat surprised that this assualt started as early as is did (pre-election) given that Bush/Rumsfeld have repeatedly stated that the schedule for the retaking of Faluda (sp?) is November (post election) so we don't associate the massive casualties (either civilian or US forces 'cause it'll be one or the other or both) with Bush before the election.  I guess since Samarra is both so much smaller and has a proportionally much smaller insurgent force they figured this could 'boost the home front moral'.  If they attempted similar tactics in Faluda the civilian casualties would be staggeringly massive.

----------


## Joann Raytar

Spexvet, I agree with you on many points - perhaps we should both be afraid. :) 

Rinselberg, I thought certain folks in Russia had gotten to the point where they were selling anything off to anybody to make money including subs and etc.

I also agree with coda's points.

__________________________________

There is still no doubt in my mind that Hussein had to go. I am also not surprised that it is taking the amount of time it has to undo what his regime has done and to hold off any newcomers wishing to become the new oppressive regime.

I am just surprised that we haven't been hearing a great deal about long term plans against global terrorism.

----------


## chm2023

> Spexvet, I agree with you on many points - perhaps we should both be afraid. :) 
> 
> Rinselberg, I thought certain folks in Russia had gotten to the point where they were selling anything off to anybody to make money including subs and etc.
> 
> I also agree with coda's points.
> 
> __________________________________
> 
> There is still no doubt in my mind that Hussein had to go. I am also not surprised that it is taking the amount of time it has to undo what his regime has done and to hold off any newcomers wishing to become the new oppressive regime.
> ...


 
I don't know that Hussein "had to go" minus any plan to bring stability to Iraq in a manner that would not fuel the fires of radical Islam/terrorism.  The devil you know as they say.  I was reading an interesting article about Iraq somewhere, one of the comments that stayed with me was that the failure of the administration re the war on terror and the war in Iraq is less a failure of intelligence than it is a failure of imagination.  Pretty fair assessment IMO.

----------


## coda

Paul Bremer has some fairly harsh things to say about waging the peace in the following:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180514/

----------


## chm2023

> Paul Bremer has some fairly harsh things to say about waging the peace in the following:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6180514/


When you read things like this, and then hear Bush and his minions (Rice, Rummy) maintain that knowing what they know today, they would not have done anything differently, it does take one aback. W sees this as a virtue, apparently, "staying the course". He doesn't seem to understand that this is a good thing only if the course is wise, staying a faulty course is moronic. 

Dear God, how simple minded is this man?

Saw in the paper that Poland is talking about pulling out its troops. And really, as we learned last Wed night, what is a coalition without Poland?;)

----------


## Steve Machol

What will also be interesting is Colin Powell's book when he leaves the Bush Administration.  I believe he will not stay for a second term if Bush were re-elected.

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet, I agree with you on many points - perhaps we should both be afraid. :)


Don't worry, Jo, I fear no evil.;)




> I am just surprised that we haven't been hearing a great deal about long term plans against global terrorism.


 Yeah, like when do we invade Ireland to take out the IRA?

----------


## Joann Raytar

Not just the UK - Japan, Spain, Russia, Italy, France & Israel have faced terrible acts against their people.  What about global solutions?

----------


## Judy Canty

I think that Gen. Powell  has already made it clear that he will not remain a part of the current administration.  He has been conspicuously absent during much of the campaign.

----------


## rinselberg

Judy Canty perhaps is correct about Colin Powell's intentions. But as I said in a previous post, I think the reasons that Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld have kept their distance from the Presidential election have more to do with their Cabinet positions than their politics or personal plans. It just wouldn't do to have the U.S. Secretary of State or Defense looking too conspicuously Republican on the international scene, especially when there's an active military conflict. In general, I don't think that these two Cabinet OFFICES in particular have a history of their appointees looking too closely involved in electoral politics. (But I'm no expert on this, for sure.)

----------


## coda

Great cover story in the LA Times yesterday on the final weapons inspectors report.  The most interesting bit of information I gleened was that *the* *only attempt at the production of* *weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the 1st gulf war was this year and it was done by the insurgents.*  Lets remember that many of these insurgents are closely linked to (or actually are) islamic fundamentalist terror organizations such as AQ.

Still think the world is safer now we've gotten rid of Saddam?  Still think that removing Saddam was a wise way to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorists?  Still think we waged the peace well?

----------


## rinselberg

Yes, yes and mostly TBD. Only time will tell about our efforts to stabilize and reconstruct Iraq. I think a lot more will be apparent after the Iraqi national elections. One thought that I have always retained: If we had NOT taken out Saddam Hussein, AQ and similar groups would be grinding out recruitment posters accusing the U.S. of propping him up.

----------


## coda

> Yes, yes and mostly TBD. Only time will tell about our efforts to stabilize and reconstruct Iraq. I think a lot more will be apparent after the Iraqi national elections.


So having terrorists experimenting with WMDs has made us safer?  I agree that if we had properly secured the country after the invasion that we'd be in a better position than we were (as would the Iraqi people) but since we didn't I think we're all worse off.




> One thought that I have always retained: If we had NOT taken out Saddam Hussein, AQ and similar groups would be grinding out recruitment posters accusing the U.S. of propping him up.


They had 10 years to do this and they didn't.  These folks are masters of public relations if they thought they thought that playing that card would work they would have done it.

----------

