Acceptable Deaths in Iraq: Vote now!!

What is an "acceptable" number of daily casulaties in Iraq

  • 0

    Votes: 10 76.9%
  • 0-10

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 10-25

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 25-50

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 50-100

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 100+

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • Total voters
    13
T

Tao_Equus

Guest
George W Bush (what does that W stand for?), has moved the goalposts!!
Now aint we all really suprised at that he would have to shift from his Paislyite 'no surrender' position? No? OK so we aint suprised.
So what is an acceptable number of casualties in Iraq? I dont know so I'm lookin for help here :p
(well i will be when i figure out how to do a pole)
 
Note: I believe the current average death toll is around 90 a day.
 
I voted zero...currently unanimous opinion with the other three voters...I was surprised.

There is never an acceptable death toll. This was a debacle, and those who started it are still sticking to their story...despite it being chopped down every minute..

Moving the goal posts...naw, just keep changing the name of the game!
 
I am a little late on this thread. I wonder who actually voted 100+ deaths were acceptable. I don't believe that the States belong there anymore than any other country, like say... mine.
 
There is a cosmic reason somewhere in time and space why the concept of "zero" was invented...and I'm pretty sure that this is it !

W ? I believe that's the twenty third letter in the English alphabet . Really...that's all it means to me.

flow....:cool:
 
Here's some relevant information on this topic. Acceptable deaths? Sure, why not? says the cynical power structure. "After all, we can compensate you. Now hush up."

Recently, through a Freedom of Information Act request, the ACLU pried loose some of the requests for compensation payments submitted by Iraqis and Afghans (and the military's decisions on them, including denials of payment). They make grim reading. Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher offered this description: "What price (when we do pay) do we place on the life of a 9-year-old boy, shot by one of our soldiers who mistook his book bag for a bomb satchel? Would you believe $500? And when we shoot an Iraqi journalist on a bridge we shell out $2,500 to his widow -- but why not the measly $5,000 she had requested?"

Back in 2005, Iraqi payments already seemed to average about $2,500 for a wrongful death. That, for instance, is what the families of two dozen innocent Iraqis slaughtered in another Marines-run-amok moment at Haditha, also after an attack on a convoy of Humvees that wounded a Marine, received. ("They ranged from little babies to adult males and females," said Ryan Briones, a Marine witness to the event. "I'll never be able to get that out of my head. I can still smell the blood.")

This practice is not new to George Bush's wars. During the Vietnam War, as part of the American pacification program, U.S. officials made what were called "solatium payments" for wrongful deaths caused by American forces. Back then, the U.S. valued Vietnamese adults at about $35 (U.S.), while children's lives were worth about $15.

We don't know who exactly decided on the value in U.S. dollars of the life of a 16 year-old Afghan girl, slaughtered while carrying a bundle of grass to her family farmhouse, or on the basis of what formula for pricing life the decision was made. We know a good deal more about how the U.S. government evaluated the worth of the lives of slaughtered American innocents. For that, however, you have to think back to the aftermath of the attacks of September 11th, 2001. The family or spouse of a loved one murdered on that day was also given a monetary value by the U.S. government -- on average $1.8 million, thanks to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, created by an act of Congress, signed into law by President Bush 13 days after the attacks, and put into operation thanks to 33 months of careful, pro bono evaluation of the worth of an innocent American life by Special Master of the fund Kenneth Feinberg. (Small numbers of illegal immigrants who worked in the World Trade Center were also given these payments, as were larger numbers of foreigners who worked there.) Even here, however, the monetary value of a human life varied greatly, being computed, just as Ettie Pressman's once was, at the mandate of Congress, on the basis of the victim's estimated lost lifetime earnings.


Full article.
 
This question is bogus and irrelevant. Therefore, I did not vote.

In the first place, I'm assuming by causalities, you mean deaths, though a causality could mean someone who is injured. And that by causalities, you mean troop causalities. If that's the case, you will always have troop causalities in war. That is the sacrifice we are making in Iraq today. What is hopeful is that we can find ways to minimize those causalities. Unfortunately, we haven't found an effective means to deter suicide bombers. The question then becomes, should we withdraw because we have not done so? And since we are getting beat by the suicide bomber's terms should we bowed like we did in Vietnam and admit defeat?

There is no easy solution to this. I'd want nothing more than to get our troops out of there, but what would be the short and long term repercussions? Would Iraq quagmate into civil war? Would Iran or Syria or Al-Quaida try to set up a puppet government in lieu of our attempts to bring democracy and peace into the region? Would oil prices jump through the roof due to terrorist blackmail? Would another dictator like Saddam emerge from the rubble?

What is your solution?
 
What is your solution?
Back up the clock and not be there...nope that won't work...although that would be the best.

What do we tell our kids to do when they make a mistake?: fess up, apologize to all involved, ask forgiveness, and take part in a mutual discussion and assist in the solution (probably not the solution the transgressor would prefer)
 
Dondi. You are correct, there is no easy solution. Yet that does not change the fact that the occupation and military action in Iraq by American forces and private contractors is illegal under international law and immoral. Much like Vietnam, this is a war of aggression waged for political reasons and ends. Indeed, if the powers controlling America at this moment truly believed in the "liberation of the Iraqi people" and their right to self-determination, we would withdraw. Let them sort it out amongst themselves. Oh no!! This creates a panic scenario for many Americans: "No!! There are terrorists there--they will take control and blow up the United States! Jihad will engulf the globe!!" I think we underestimate the power of people in general, and in this case we are underestimating the power of the Iraqi people. We are treating them like sheep that need to be guided and herded because they are incapable of governing themselves. Right? That's the argument, right? That they cannot take care of themselves--as Q said in another thread, they need their diapers changed because they are a baby country??

Bull. Let them sort it out. We have no right or reason--besides vested oil interests--to be in that country. We are a democracy? We value freedom? BULL again. If we did, we would be out of Iraq and working overtime to overhaul our domestic infrastructure so that we can ween ourselves completely from foreign oil. Electric cars, fuel cells, solar and wind power, decentralization, rules and regulations for oil consumption, no more gas-guzzlers on the road. Yes people would protest on those limits to their access to and use of their purchased vehicles--as they should, after all this is a democracy. But also we truly need to learn to work together and take some for the team--not in any kind of opinion-censoring way, but in regards to cutting back our consumption. America needs a crash diet when it comes to energy consumption. This is a hard lesson and a hard pill for all of us to swallow. Until we step up and are able to take care of ourselves though, our own problems here, what business do we have initiating adventures abroad and bullying/"policing" the world population so that we can indulge our base appetites at home?

Sorry, but foreign wars initiated because Americans feel threatened and uncomfortable by the harsh realities of finite resources are not, I believe, in the spirit of the principles and values that this country was founded on.
 
This question is bogus and irrelevant. Therefore, I did not vote.

In the first place, I'm assuming by causalities, you mean deaths, though a causality could mean someone who is injured. And that by causalities, you mean troop causalities. If that's the case, you will always have troop causalities in war. That is the sacrifice we are making in Iraq today. What is hopeful is that we can find ways to minimize those causalities. Unfortunately, we haven't found an effective means to deter suicide bombers. The question then becomes, should we withdraw because we have not done so? And since we are getting beat by the suicide bomber's terms should we bowed like we did in Vietnam and admit defeat?

There is no easy solution to this. I'd want nothing more than to get our troops out of there, but what would be the short and long term repercussions? Would Iraq quagmate into civil war? Would Iran or Syria or Al-Quaida try to set up a puppet government in lieu of our attempts to bring democracy and peace into the region? Would oil prices jump through the roof due to terrorist blackmail? Would another dictator like Saddam emerge from the rubble?

What is your solution?

The question is bogus and irrelevant? How? It was posted just a few hours after GWB announced the following shift of policy on May 2nd:

"But success is a level of violence where people feel comfortable living their daily lives. And thats what we are trying to acheive"

Full speech available here: President Bush Discusses War on Terror, Economy with Associated General Contractors of America

In answer to your questions I would echo much of what Pathless just said. And additionaly remind you it is a member of a rich 'oil' family that dragged our countries into this war on a deliberate campaign of lies. There are no egalatarian motives for being in Iraq. And I am absolutely confident that should the same money thats been spent waging this war be spent on developing new technologies, then even america would be a whole lot further down the track of self suffiency of energy than it currently can even dream of. This war was waged to make a very few filthy rich individuals even richer. No other reason. They dont care about Allied casualties, they care less about Iraqi casualties. You think thats bogus....read a newspaper.
 
What is your solution?

Chalmers Johnson has an ideal and workable solution: withdraw from Iraq, reverse military spending, close down the majority of military bases throughout the world, implement actual checks and balances, and instigate a revolutionary re-structuring of governmental agencies. Indeed, he suggests it is imperative that we do so. He writes in "Evil Empire: Is Imperial Liquidation Possible for America?":

When Ronald Reagan coined the phrase "evil empire," he was referring to the Soviet Union, and I basically agreed with him that the USSR needed to be contained and checkmated. But today it is the U.S. that is widely perceived as an evil empire and world forces are gathering to stop us. The Bush administration insists that if we leave Iraq our enemies will "win" or -- even more improbably -- "follow us home." I believe that, if we leave Iraq and our other imperial enclaves, we can regain the moral high ground and disavow the need for a foreign policy based on preventive war. I also believe that unless we follow this path, we will lose our democracy and then it will not matter much what else we lose. In the immortal words of Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

This article is rich and required reading for all Americans. They should teach this kind of thing in schools to get kids thinking. Instead, we have watered-down cartoon versions of history.

I also like the following bit--but you should go read the whole article.

Nothing in the Constitution, least of all the commander-in-chief clause, allows the president to commit felonies. Nonetheless, within days after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush had signed a secret executive order authorizing a new policy of "extraordinary rendition," in which the CIA is allowed to kidnap terrorist suspects anywhere on Earth and transfer them to prisons in countries like Egypt, Syria, or Uzbekistan, where torture is a normal practice, or to secret CIA prisons outside the United States where Agency operatives themselves do the torturing.

On the home front, despite the post-9/11 congressional authorization of new surveillance powers to the administration, its officials chose to ignore these and, on its own initiative, undertook extensive spying on American citizens without obtaining the necessary judicial warrants and without reporting to Congress on this program. These actions are prima-facie violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (and subsequent revisions) and of Amendment IV of the Constitution.

These alone constitute more than adequate grounds for impeachment, while hardly scratching the surface. And yet, on the eve of the national elections of November 2006, then House Minority Leader, now Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), pledged on the CBS News program "60 Minutes" that "impeachment is off the table." She called it "a waste of time." And six months after the Democratic Party took control of both houses of Congress, the prison at Guantánamo Bay was still open and conducting drumhead courts martial of the prisoners held there; the CIA was still using "enhanced interrogation techniques" on prisoners in foreign jails; illegal intrusions into the privacy of American citizens continued unabated; and, more than fifty years after the CIA was founded, it continues to operate under, at best, the most perfunctory congressional oversight.
 
Back
Top