International Red Cross: claims 1 civilian killed so far in Baghdad bombing

[Jazz]

Also about 37 injured - heard this on Fox, no corroboration. Good news if true, also means the civilians are staying away from the targets and that the US is indeed very accurate.

But as everyone knows the IRC is full of liars with pro-US axes to grind, so please feel free to ignore their figures.

 

Jazz, that's great news if true. Except I head that the IRC was having trouble getting into Iraq (hope that is a false rumor).

What about the 5 guys on the bus?

 

[radiofreecostarica]

And these are only the casualties in Baghdad.

 

[Jazz]

I would assume, being inside Iraq, casualities of war, Lander - I don't know.

radio: it won't make any difference whatsoever to you, will it? You will always find another thing to throw up - I'm positive we will inadvertently kill more civilians despite our best efforts, and aided by the enemy who is now seen to be using their own people for human shields. It is regrettable, we are doing everything to avoid it and in fact they are now using that fact about us to ambush us in civilian clothes and using civilian women and children as shields. Please comment at length upon the evil of a regime which would do that, please, to give some of your comments context.

Also, don't forget, after the war, to ask the civilians 'spared' the atrocities of the United States if it was worth it.

 

"I would assume, being inside Iraq, casualities of war, Lander - I don't know."

So, what would constitute a "civilian casualty". Anyone killed while being outside of Iraq?

 

[Jazz]

Nope. If they are civilians, they are civilian casualties of war. I meant to point out they were not in their own country, is all.

Before you guys go further, let me state that civilian casualties are a part of any war - the US stands alone in the incredible effort to minimize the casualties. Argue against war if you like, but those of you arguing the US is doing nothing or is killing huge numbers of civilians are flat wrong and will be embarrassed when you find out how wrong. As to those who feel ONE civilian is too many, that's your right - ridiculous, in the light of how wars are fought especially against a regime adopting these tactics, naive, and completely in la-la land. Civilians die in any war - I submit no one in the history of warfare will have done as much as the US in their attempts to reduce as much as humanly possible civilian casualties.

Quote me on this later

 

Saddam bombs his own people then leads the media to the spot and yells "SEE SEE SEE what "they" have done."

- - -
"This is the business we've chosen." - Hyman Roth

 

Fat F

I don't think ANYONE here think's Saddam is more than a useless piece of shit.

But, I think the US should be held to a much higher standards.

While Saddam killed his own and others, STARTING a war with the expressed purpose of maybe he's got WMD's just doesn't play to the basic foundation the US was built on.

 

" As to those who feel ONE civilian is too many, that's your right - ridiculous, in the light of how wars are fought"

Would you say this statement holds true for unproven, unjust wars?

 

[Jazz]

lol - here we go on the endless merry-go-round - I'm sorry, I'm tired of always going back to the debate as to whether it is just and whether we do have sufficient reason to do so - I could expand on my answer but I've done it at length before and won't.

All of these posts are nothing but rivulets from the main Flood, whether this war is just or not. I've made my mind up and am not changing it on this specific issue.

 

"whether we do have sufficient reason"

Reasoning is based on facts. Facts are based on evidence. We have no evidence, thus no facts, thus no valid reasoning.

"I've made my mind up and am not changing it on this specific issue."

Well, that's a different scenario.

 

[Jazz]

"Reasoning is based on facts. Facts are based on evidence. We have no evidence, thus no facts, thus no valid reasoning."

Lander, with all due respect, you have absolutely no clue as to what evidence the U.S. has in the way of intelligence with respect to Iraq's WMDs. None. Yet you state it as a FACT that we don't. You will next state 'then why haven't we seen it?', when I've already answered that in another topic with respect to the inability of the UN process to prevent the Iraqis from learning which sites are targeted.

Jump up and down at Saddam who refused all these years of inspections, who refused to disarm until the last minutes with Al Sahmoud missiles he'd recently developed, showing no proof of the destruction of the tons of WMDS the UN knew he had. THAT'S evidence - he provided, on the other hand, NO evidence he destroyed them.

Quite reasonable in my view, and my view is also that the UN nations who knew he had these weapons, in particular France, are hypocritical and cynical by not allowing a deadline with automatic action if Saddam had failed - blame them as well.

Fine - blame the U.S. - tough. We're there, we're going to take care of business, and I'm not losing beauty sleep over the hand-wringing about it. Not, yet anyway.

 

"Lander, with all due respect, you have absolutely no clue as to what evidence the U.S. has in the way of intelligence with respect to Iraq's WMDs. None."
And you do? Your argument is based on 'good faith'. Mine is based on the fact that we had 12 years to gather & present evidence - BUT we HAVEN'T presented it.

"Yet you state it as a FACT that we don't. You will next state 'then why haven't we seen it?', when I've already answered that in another topic with respect to the inability of the UN process to prevent the Iraqis from learning which sites are targeted. "
But we were willing to present evidence on Al Queda? Please. You are an inconsistant as The Adminstration.

"Quite reasonable in my view, and my view is also that the UN nations who knew he had these weapons, in particular France, are hypocritical and cynical by not allowing a deadline with automatic action if Saddam had failed - blame them as well."
What happened to "show your cards", is that cynical or just a lie/ What about striking 2 hours before the 48 deadline? Is that a lie?

"Fine - blame the U.S. - tough. We're there, we're going to take care of business "
I'm not blaming the U.S, I'm blaming the Bush Administration. Bush is part of America, not vice versa. You contort this to appease your "hate America" logic, but your logic is flawed - not wanting American soldiers to die is not anit-American, it's pro-American.

"and I'm not losing beauty sleep over the hand-wringing about it. Not, yet anyway"
You just posted that you've "made up your mind and aren't changing it". So, why imply you're being objective?

 

[Jazz]

Oh, I AM objective with respect to my agreeing with the need for this war - if I'm wrong in any major factual way, I'll admit it. But my reasoning so far has led me to support the war.

'Your' side lacks objectivity from my point of view - but then that's because I don't blame Bush, I guess. Also, you just shoved words in my mouth that have never been there ... 'appease your Hate America logic' ... you know for a fact I have not said that about anyone - why are you distorting my position?

I really don't even feel like answering your ridiculous '2 hours before the deadline' comment - but, he was fair game as soon as he announced they would never leave. Boo ****ing hoo.

The reason we presented evidence on Al Queda was quite different than Iraq - the unveiling of it could not change the facts, whereas the unveiling of sites to the UN, which I have been THEORIZING upon, could have caused the Iraqis to eliminate all evidence as they are known to have in earlier inspections, according to former UNSCOM inspectors. THAT'S the difference.

 

"Oh, I AM objective with respect to my agreeing with the need for this war - if I'm wrong in any major factual way, I'll admit it. But my reasoning so far has led me to support the war."
When you said your mind is "made up" I had (apparently wrongly) presumed that your objectivity had stopped, otherwise I would have imagined the rationale as "ever-going".

"'Your' side lacks objectivity from my point of view - but then that's because I don't blame Bush, I guess. Also, you just shoved words in my mouth that have never been there ... 'appease your Hate America logic' ... you know for a fact I have not said that about anyone - why are you distorting my position?"
That your view. Ok, I respect that, but obviously disagree. As for the 'Hate America logic' I thought your "blame America" reference was a step in that direction. I guess I have heard that arguments illogically made so many times from Out that I jumped the gun.

"I really don't even feel like answering your ridiculous '2 hours before the deadline' comment - but, he was fair game as soon as he announced they would never leave. Boo ****ing hoo."
Perhaps, but it does show one's character. Bush had 100% ruled out any chance of a change of heart that would have led towards a peaceful resolution, but when you have 250,000 sitting at somebody's front door you really aren't looking for peace, are you?

"The reason we presented evidence on Al Queda was quite different than Iraq - the unveiling of it could not change the facts, whereas the unveiling of sites to the UN, which I have been THEORIZING upon, could have caused the Iraqis to eliminate all evidence as they are known to have in earlier inspections, according to former UNSCOM inspectors. THAT'S the difference."
Since we've concluded that neither of us are privy to classified information, I'm not sure how you can conclude at such - but I suppose that's they you mentioned "THEORIZING".
Fair enough.

As always, the civilness is appreciated.

 

[KMAN]

Look at all of the innocent civilians that have been killed

Saddam has probably killed more civilians in the last 5 days than we have.


KMAN

 

[radiofreecostarica]

I'm positive we will inadvertently kill more civilians

There is no such thing in an aggressive "war", as the "inadvertent" murder of civilians.
It's known as terrorism.

 

[PatPatriot]

Come to think of it there has been more protester killed by their own actions around the world than all the bombs over Ragdad..some more irony and perspective that the libs will close their eyes too, and not admit to their own intellectual failure.

 

[Jazz]

Radio: lol!