I'm gonna catch a lot of flak from this, but...
2,917
Official Sept. 11 Death Toll of Innocent Civilians
5,000
Conservatively Estimated Iraqi Death Toll of Innocent Civilians
ID:187576
 Nov 22 2004, 10:37 am
|
|
God I love these threads...
| |
This can be compared to:
Pearl Harbor: ~2400 Hiroshma deaths: ~140,000 I don't see what's unfair about that at all. A group authorized by their government attacked our country. When you invade a country, there are bound to be "civilian" casulaties. Is it unfair to retaliate? Should we stand aside and let them attack again? No. We do whatever we need to do to prevent a threat to our citizens again. The two casualty lists are incomparable. We don't work on an eye for an eye. | |
How much do you want to bet that death toll of innocent civilians from iraq is probably at least over 70% caused by their own militants?
| |
Yeah except by using the A-bomb you saved lives. Which was 'the right thing' or the closest thing at the time.
| |
They started it. >.>
</third grade> | |
While the A-Bomb probably did save lives, our war in Iraq did too.
~140,000 + ~100,000 -------- ~240,000 justifiable lost lives ~3000 + ~2400 ----- ~5400 unjustifiable lost lives If a number of foreigners have to die to keep your country safe, you do it. There's no doubt in my mind that more people would have died if we hadn't taken care of the Taliban early on. | |
Spuzzum wrote:
5,000 HavenMaster wrote: I don't see what's unfair about that at all. A group authorized by their government attacked our country. A group authorized by the Iraqi government never attacked the United States. That was Afghanistan, and totally different. Concerning your pearl harbor and hiroshima statistics, that's totally different from the current situation. The US and Japan were at war with one another and for some reason, the US decided to murder thousands of innocent civilians in two japanese cities. | |
OK yeah, but you said Taliban. I wasn't sure Saddam was part of the Taliban. But now I'm probably digging myself into a fight i'm not feeling like having right now. I think I'll just concede.
| |
True that they were murdering loads of civilians illegally. But they saved lives by using the bombs. To put forth an invasion on the mainland of Japan would cause at least 1 million American lives at the initial coastal landing alone. The numbers are anywhere up to 2 million American lives and 6 million Japanese military lives. Then factor in the civilians that would be killed. The numbers are astronomical. You have to realize that when the Americans fight the Japanese there is no such thing as surrender. They fought to the death. If The Americans are going to take a small Pacific island with say 1000 troops on it less than 20 would surrender and be prisoners, or so statistics tell.
I know it probably sounds horrible for me to say this and I would probably have a different opinion if I was on the receiving end of a bomb, but Truman made a decisions that was best (as far as 'I' know) about what to do. | |
First decent thing you've said HM, I can completely agree with the example you gave. But I say : "Kill them all" instead of "Ohh the poor innocent civilians!"
| |
Jon88 wrote:
A group authorized by the Iraqi government never attacked the United States. its like paying it forward. the US kills thousands of people in another country. that country kills thousands of people in another country, and eventually it gets back to the people that "deserve it". | |
Sorry about that, suppose I got the two mixed up in my head. None the less, one triggered the other and Saddam did harbor terrorists. I still don't see how Hiroshima and Nagisaki are different though. Japan surprise attacked the US and we retaliated.
| |
Kaga-Kami wrote:
First decent thing you've said HM, I can completely agree with the example you gave. But I say : "Kill them all" instead of "Ohh the poor innocent civilians!" What'd they do to you? | |
I still don't see how Hiroshima and Nagisaki are different though. Japan surprise attacked the US and we retaliated. That's exactly how it's different. Japan attacked the U.S. and we retaliated. That's good (well, not as good as not getting attacked). Al-Qaeda attacked the U.S. and we attacked two foreign governments, one of which had ties to Al-Qaeda (Afghanistan)... but not as strong ones as governments which we turned around and brokered stronger ties to, and one of which was an enemy of Al-Qaeda the same as we are (that being Iraq. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but he was a secular, non-religious bad guy... having a non-religious figure in charge of a Muslim country is pretty galling to the fanatics). This is bad. If attacking Iraq was retaliation for anything, it wasn't 9/11. We have turned Iraq INTO an Al-Qaeda stronghold. It wasn't a harbor or a recruitment ground for Al-Qaeda before. It is now! | |
HavenMaster wrote:
I don't see what's unfair about that at all. My neighbor's dog across the street bites my leg. I'm very angry about this violation. So, I go to his brother and give him a box of chocolates and some flowers. Then, I go to my neighbor who lives right next door to me on the left and shoot his children, because he owns a dog too, and he beats his wife. That sounds totally fair to me. ~X | |
Yeah but you've got to think about those numbers a little.
You've got the death toll from a single attack aimed at the innocent civilians and you've got the death toll of civilians killed during a war. Also you've got to take into account that in Iraq the enemy blend into the civilian population rather well. You really can't expect a soldier to assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty on the battle-field. At the end of the day people are innocent and guilty, but when you pull the trigger they're either a threat or not a threat. | |
Nothing wrong with posting numbers. But in the interests of fairness you should also post numbers of people killed or tortured by the Hussein regime. Maybe also a per-diem death rate before and after Saddam's government fell. Just 'cause I'm curious...
| |
~>Jiskuha