72% Of Registered Iraqis Voted

[wonks]

civil war is probably going to happen anyway. the sunnis didn't vote in very large numbers at all and for some reason shi'a's and sunnis don't get along very well.

[Biggie]

It's good the Iraqi's voted and it went.. relatively smoothly atleast. The elections must be fair, and all factions of Iraq must be given a say and not repressed by whatever faction gains power, or else the region will degrade into a civil war.

There will be proportional Sunni representation in this government despite their lower turnout, while they write their constitution.

 

I can't see there being a civil war in Iraq any time soon. At least not while the US is there, and they won't pull out until it is stable enough.

[wonks]

are you sure? they pulled out of Vietnam real fast, and we all know that country wasn't at all stable.

[Biggie]

Apples and oranges. I'm sure you can see that.

[wonks]

I honestly don't think it is that different. America has spent a very large amount of money in the area already. If more and more money is spent and soldiers keep getting killed there will be a huge amount of backlash and bad press in the States. If that happens there will be a lot of pressure on Bush to find a way out of Iraq without further losses.

[Biggie]

I honestly don't think it is that different. America has spent a very large amount of money in the area already. If more and more money is spent and soldiers keep getting killed there will be a huge amount of backlash and bad press in the States. If that happens there will be a lot of pressure on Bush to find a way out of Iraq without further losses.

I really doubt it. In Vietnam, roughly 60 000 US soldiers died. The US death toll will never even come close to that in Iraq. It's at about 1500 after 2 years. Opposition forces in South Vietnam, such as the Viet Cong, were strong... the insurgents in Iraq today have neither the capability nor the popular support which the Viet Cong did.

 

The American public obviously supports the occupation, at least to the point that it re-elected Bush. I think most people would rather see the US stay longer and ensure the stability of Iraq than leave too soon and have years of effort and sacrifice go to hell. The election this weekend probably has made support for the war among the US population sky rocket.

[ecnarf]

I honestly don't think it is that different.  America has spent a very large amount of money in the area already.  If more and more money is spent and soldiers keep getting killed there will be a huge amount of backlash and bad press in the States.  If that happens there will be a lot of pressure on Bush to find a way out of Iraq without further losses.

I really doubt it. In Vietnam, roughly 60 000 US soldiers died. The US death toll will never even come close to that in Iraq. It's at about 1500 after 2 years. Opposition forces in South Vietnam, such as the Viet Cong, were strong... the insurgents in Iraq today have neither the capability nor the popular support which the Viet Cong did.

 

The American public obviously supports the occupation, at least to the point that it re-elected Bush. I think most people would rather see the US stay longer and ensure the stability of Iraq than leave too soon and have years of effort and sacrifice go to hell. The election this weekend probably has made support for the war among the US population sky rocket.

Well, I've studied the anti-war movement in Vietnam somewhat, and I can say with some confidence that Iraq won't go to the level that Vietnam did. Considering that the country is pretty much split 50-50 on the Iraq war (recent polls showed that a slight majority of Americans thought the war was a mistake, 47 percent of voters voted against bush, and bush's approval rating was under 50 percent in the run-up to the election).

 

Not to mention, Vietnam War Syndrome didn't exist during the Vietnam War. Given all the (hushed over) to-do about 1000 soldiers having died, imagine all the outrage over, say, 2000 soldiers having died, or even 10000. And don't forget the several thousands of soldiers that have been injured to some capacity.

 

I also doubt that the election caused support for the war to go up. People knew it was coming for a long time, and republicans (either in politics or in the public) have been saying that the elections would cause Bush's popularity to rise, or that support for the war would go up, and liberals have been saying that the elections might just cause the planet to blow up, and I don't think either has happened.

[Kayriss]

I'm holding my breath for the day that American fatalities in Iraq exceeds the number of people that died on Septemeber 11th 2001. That will be a somber occasion.

[summerbronze]

What about Iraqi fatalities? Do they not somehow count - not being American = not as somber that they die needlessly?

[no yu begin wher i end]

What about Iraqi fatalities? Do they not somehow count - not being American = not as somber that they die needlessly?

I don't think they get counted, which begs the question: how does the army know that they're minimizing civilian casualties, besides just saying so?

[wentwj68]

they are counted through indepedant organizations, no official count by the US.

 

www.iraqibodycount.com

 

and other places conduct independant counts.

[summerbronze]

I'm holding my breath for the day that American fatalities in Iraq exceeds the number of people that died on Septemeber 11th 2001. That will be a somber occasion.

My last post - and I think 'no yu begin wher I end's last post - are in response to this statement by 'Kayriss'.

 

I wasn't questioning whether the actual civilian casualties where being counted. But that is a whole other issue - accuracy of even independant counts is questionable for reasons largely outside their control.

[ecnarf]

I'm holding my breath for the day that American fatalities in Iraq exceeds the number of people that died on Septemeber 11th 2001. That will be a somber occasion.

My last post - and I think 'no yu begin wher I end's last post - are in response to this statement by 'Kayriss'.

 

I wasn't questioning whether the actual civilian casualties where being counted. But that is a whole other issue - accuracy of even independant counts is questionable for reasons largely outside their control.

I think www.iraqbodycount.org is probably the best count so far of iraq fatalities, they rely solely on news reports for their counting, although you're right in saying that they could be innacurate for reasons outside their control.

[no yu begin wher i end]

What I should've said was that the military doesn't count civilian casualties, which they should, for the reason I stated above.

[summerbronze]

I'm holding my breath for the day that American fatalities in Iraq exceeds the number of people that died on Septemeber 11th 2001. That will be a somber occasion.

I don't mean to single out Kayriss (even though I guess I am). I've heard this so frequently and I find it incredibly reprehensible.

 

The implication (possibly not intentional?) is that only when American deaths in Iraq exceed a certain number will the death toll be "somber".

 

WTF??? ;)

 

A life is a life, regardless of nationality, and it's inexcuseable that the government and media suggest that American life is more valuable than any other.

[ecnarf]

I'm holding my breath for the day that American fatalities in Iraq exceeds the number of people that died on Septemeber 11th 2001. That will be a somber occasion.

I don't mean to single out Kayriss (even though I guess I am). I've heard this so frequently and I find it incredibly reprehensible.

 

The implication (possibly not intentional?) is that only when American deaths in Iraq exceed a certain number will the death toll be "somber".

 

WTF??? ;)

 

A life is a life, regardless of nationality, and it's inexcuseable that the government and media suggest that American life is more valuable than any other.

I think we've already realized that. When the reported death toll of 100,000 Iraqis reached the united states, hardly anyone batted an eye. Face it, when it comes to deaths, the deaths of soldiers is all that's important.

[Biggie]

No one batted an eye because it was such a gross exageration.

[Munk]

Indeed. The Lancet report has yet to be confirmed. We can only really go by what we know.

 

Casualty numbers thus far

[summerbronze]

We can only really go by what we know.

;) Indeed.

[ecnarf]

No one batted an eye because it was such a gross exageration.

Okay, if you say so.

 

I guess 15,000 confirmed dead is all shiny and happy, then.

[Biggie]

No, but it's not 100 000.

 

The Lancet report was a farce. It had a margin of error of 90 000, which means that by their estimate the death toll could be 10 000 or 190 000, rendering it basically useless. The story was rushed to publication for political considerations prior to the US election.

[ecnarf]

No, but it's not 100 000.

 

The Lancet report was a farce. It had a margin of error of 90 000, which means that by their estimate the death toll could be 10 000 or 190 000, rendering it basically useless. The story was rushed to publication for political considerations prior to the US election.

Yeah, you're right about that. I never much cared to use that report's figures in arguments, because even I have doubts that that many Iraqis could have died.

 

Although I did read an article in the NYT last week that said the army had caused up to 60 percent of civilian deaths... I'm trying to find it now.