Death Toll Count

What exactly do you propose we/I do at this [I]very[/I] moment, other than picketing or candlelight vigils, to help the anti-war cause in any immediate way?

letters to the editor. publish websites. even bickering on message boards is doing something. call legislators. call the freaking white house for pete's sake. and yes, picketing at least shows the world that there is a difference between the US population and the government. most of all VOTE. change takes time. just because gee-dub isn't listening doesn't mean we shouldn't keep expressing ourselves--sooner or later we'll find a way to make it in his best interest to listen. like during the next election.

and either way, what i think you should DO is beside the point. i thought we were arguing about what we were thinking, not what we were doing. personally i don't give a fuck what you do, even though i have my own ideas about what should be done right now. what i thought we were discussing was a thought process.

and if being anti-war doesn't make a difference, why does being pro-war mean anything either? why be anything? why think anything? why even live at all? it's a slippery slope you're on, epon.

You seem to be misunderstanding quite a bit of what I say, but I'll skip over the non-topics. What I mean about being anti-war, is that it's fighting for a lost cause. The war has started, and there is no stopping this one (If I'm wrong, seriously, I will admit defeat humbly and dumbfoundedly). Now, other wars, or any other thing, I'm willing to fight for. But I am not going to split hairs about what's going on over there when the only thing that matters at this point is them getting back alive. If I was fighting over there, I wouldn't want to be hearing how unjust it is, seeing as how it isn't my decision. Maybe I'm strange that way.

Don't think that I don't want to fight for change, because I wouldn't fight for any other reason. But I'm tired of running uphill on this one. And me saying that, is not saying that I'll never voice an opinion, or protest, or think for myself ever again. It's just me saying that the most important thing right now isn't to sit here screaming at the top of my lungs over a cause that can't be won.

It's not a good thing that it can't be won, and it only makes me want to effect change more, but that's a seperate issue.

And don't take me saying that you misunderstood something I said as an insult, which it wasn't meant to be. You will never hear me speak highly of my debate skills, with good reason.

I know what I want to say, but I often forget to mention things and leave myself wide open for misinterpretation, and for that I apologize, whenever it does happen.

I am going to be a little off topic here, but I just wanted to say that it pleases me to see that there are people out there that actually care. People that are willing to have a viewpoint and do research in order to defend that viewpoint. America was built on opposing opinions and it is the heart and soul of this country. No matter what Bush and his henchmen do, he can't take away our opinion. Maybe if we can grin and bear it for a little bit longer we can get through this shit and rebuild America into what it was meant to be.

[i]Excuse me. Mr. DoNotTrip, correct? Yes, we're with the Department of Approved Facts, Feelings, and Yearnings. Unfortunately, you're in violation of Executive Order 2534.a and your license to opinion is hereby revoked. Any further expression of opinions will be grounds for trial under the Patriot Act, punishable up to life in prison. Thank you, and have a nice day.[/i]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by DoNotTrip [/i]
[B]Maybe if we can grin and bear it for a little bit longer we can get through this shit and rebuild America into what it was meant to be. [/B][/QUOTE]

And the crowd did nod, and in unison say, "Amen."

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by insomnomaniac [/i]
[B]and it is already my opinion that saddam is not the only clinically insane one. [/B][/QUOTE]

It'd be nice to believe that he and all the other unsavoury types that end up in power are insane. The thing is, this is just what happens when some Joe Public with a chip on his shoulder gets into a position of authority. My religion teacher, for example, is about as petty and authoritarian as they come. I wouldn't call him insane, but I shudder to think what he'd do if he had any real kind of power.

I suppose it all boils down to a desire to distance ourselves from these people. If we convince ourselves that they're diseased anomalies, we can just carry on with our merry little lives. If we acknowledge that they are, for the most part, no different from anyone else, then we're in trouble.

Juan's got it right... Saddam's not insane either. It's just the way the world works. Being a bastard, being deceitful, being 'evil', as they say, is the best way to get to a position of power. And then power corrupts, so they get even worse. It's just human nature. It sucks, and it would be nice if it could change, but it probably won't.

Everyone's got some good points here, though. I realize speaking out against the war is pretty futile, but you know what? Oh well. It's not like I've got anything better to do. I'm trying to find something, or to think of something, that I can do to bring about some changes I'd like to see. I'm thinking big, but I don't think it can happen. It doesn't have a whole lot to do with the war, I'm more interested in changing society altogether.. But I suppose I'll have to take the lesson from Catcher in the Rye.. When his teacher gives him that little speech....

Here... I'll close with it, I suppose. (Fuck, I am a rhyming GOD. Haha)

"All right. Listen to me a minute now... I may not word this as memorably as I'd like to, but I'll write you a letter about it in a day or two. Then you can get it all straight. But listen now, anyway." He started concentarting again. Then he said, "This fall I think you're riding for - it's a special kind of fall, a horrible kind. The man falling isn't permitted to feel or hear himself hit bottom. He just keeps falling and falling. The whole arrangement's designed for men who, at some time or other in their lives, were looking for something their own environement couldn't supply them with. Or they thought their own environment couldn't supply them with. So they gave up looking. They gave it up before they ever really even got started. You follow me?"
"Yes, sir."
"Sure?"
"Yes."

"I don't want to scare you," he said, "but I can very clearly see you dying nobly, one way or another, for some highly unworthy cause." He gave me a funny look. "If I write something down for you, will you read it carefully? And keep it?"
"Yes. Sure," I said. I did, too. I still have the paper he gave me.

"Oddly enough, this wasn't written by a practicing poet. It was written by a psychoanalyst named Wilhelm Stekel. Here's what he - Are you still with me?"
"Yes, sure I am."
"Here's what he said: 'The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one."

i wasn't insulted by you, eponymous. i still think it's defeatist to say, oh, well, the war's going on, we should just shut up about it because it's already happened. that's exactly what the people in power who do things regardless of the opinions or feelings of the american public right now want us to do--give up because they got their way. again. that's why bush is even still in office. oh well. that election was pretty screwed up, but, whatever. i'm tired of hearing about it.

yes, the war has started. but that doesn't mean that dissent should end. for me, the true dissent and the truly important protests are just beginning. yeah, it makes no sense to protest starting a war that has already started. but that doesn't mean you can't protest the fact that civilians and our troops are over there being killed for no reason. it doesn't mean you can't question the supposed "war plan" that's "going so well," even though some of our divisions are starving in the field because supply lines are FUBAR. it doesn't mean you can't express your opposition to being over there in the first place to those who are deciding where we go from here.

a lot of ppl seem to think that this will be a "quick war". maybe that's where the fatalism comes in--eh, it's already started, and it'll be over soon enough, so let's move on to other things. but we're starting to see that this isn't going to be grenada. it's not going to be bosnia. it's going to be vietnam. in my opinion, there will be plenty of time for further atrocities, and further protest. i don't think moving on to the next thing is possible until this is resolved.

also, i believe that what george w. bush is more than anything is catastrophically stupid. he's a functional illiterate, an alcoholic, a drug addict, and he may even be mildly retarded. i'm not exaggerating about any of this. even if he was the devil himself, i wouldn't be so worried about his finger on the button if he had just a few more IQ points. I mean, GAHHH!!

I was reading an article in an amnesty international magazine about the human rights crisis in Iraq. The article was written before the war. The writer interviewed many people around Baghdad. Here are a few interesting snipits from the article:
When asked about his resentment towards Saddam this man replied: "Whether I hate Saddam or not, and I'm not saying I do, I hate America - the government, not the people - for what it did and is going to do to our children."

The article goes on to say: Among the people I met, those feelings were paramount: concern for Iraq's children and a careful differentiation between the American people and their government.

However, the article also points out another viewpoint: "Now when I hear planes I am so afraid, afraid I will never walk again. Who do I blame? I blame the American government, but also the people. It is not too hard for Americans to listen to the news and learn the truth and to educate the ignorant ones who want to make war on us."

The article also points out another often overlooked fact: For more than 10 years, the United States has, on a weekly and sometimes daily basis, bombed Iraq - both inside of the no-fly zones and outside them. Unlike the sanctions, these sorties, purportedly aimed at protecting Shiite and Kurd minorities, are not endorsed by the U.N. Some of the casualties are civilian.

The article is entitled "Iraq: Life in the Shadow of War" by Terry J. Allen. I have a hard copy of it and I am not sure if it is on the internet, I really haven't looked. But here is a link to Amnesty International's Crisis in Iraq page:
[url]http://web.amnesty.org/pages/iraq_summary[/url]

It really disturbs me that the U.S. government finds to need to kill people so often. It seems that the majority of the international community is willing to differentiate us from our government. This just goes to show you that even they realize that our government doesn't represent the majority. I saw a quote once that went something like this: "They hate us because we don't know why they hate us."

"are not endorsed by the U.N."

In fact, they are illegal.

I don't think anybody's posted it yet, but if someone has, deal with it. Here's the official POW/MIA/death count:

[url]http://www.msnbc.com/news/892873.asp[/url]

I think that Russian Aeronautics site is better, heh. They seem pretty accurate. The numbers they are reporting for our losses in Afghanistan are pretty close to the official reports, so they certainly don't seem to be exagerating things...

"Personnel Losses: 82 killed, 494 injured

Equipment Losses: 6 manned planes lost and 3 damaged; 16 UAVs lost; 13 helicopters lost and 14 damaged; "

And only 60 or so of those killed are actually US soldiers. Which is pretty close, I think, to what they had on CNN or NBC or whatever...

Heh, they've even got a little section that describes how they intercept US military transmissions.

They haven't given an overall casualty list for the Iraq war lately, though. Although, they did put up a list of lost equipment, as of March 30th.

"Based on the intercepted radio communications, reports from both sides and other intelligence data, since the beginning of the war the coalition lost 15-20 tanks, around 40 armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, more than 50 military trucks and up to 10 helicopters. In addition to that there have been at least 40 more disabled tanks, about the same number of disabled APCs and IFVs, about 100 disabled wheeled vehicles of all types and around 40 disabled helicopters. These numbers are based on the analysis of non-classified technical reports received daily by the Pentagon."

And about the losses in Afghanistan, even though the RA numbers may be a bit more than US numbers, it's nowhere near the approx 1,000 dead that a number of arab sources are claiming, heh. Not that those are necessarily false either, but just as a comparisson, you know, trying to show that this fecking Russian site seems very credible. =D

American soldiers shot a van with 14 women and children in it. 7 dead, 4 injured. Or something like that(this sentence is refering to the numbers, not if they event took place).

Oh yeah and then there's some other site, now this one, I don't know. Supposedly, (I haven't checked up on it, just what I've heard) this guy is some canadian ex-military strategist or something... And apparently he's predicted a lot of what would happen. But here's one thing he mentioned.

"HERE'S SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

In eight days of warfare we have yet to see a confirmed report of an Iraqi T-72 tank being destroyed. Not one. They have somewhere over 500 of them that can still move, as far as people can tell, all in the Guard divisions. The Medina Division, the one Guard division that's been engaged at all, certainly had 100-150 of them at least. They've been seen... just not engaged or killed yet. Not that the T-72's so special, but it is somewhat more dangerous than the tanks the Allies have been busting up, which have been only the 40 year-old T-55s so far. Just something to think about."

That's interesting. I wonder why. Gee, disx, your now a Super-Smarty!

[URL=http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/sprj.irq.us.syria/]Uh oh...[/URL]

Not exactly sure what to make of this. First it says that Syria has decided, after being forced to choose sides, that it will back the Iraqi people. Then it goes on to say how they claim they have not meddled in the war, as Rumsfeld has accused them of doing. So are we at war with Syria? Or what? I don't know... Hrm, sounds bad, though.

Syria told us that they had given money to terrorists groups. But now that the war has started, they are siding with Iraq. I don't know it they are actully fighting, or just supporting Iraq.

The page that had the bit on no confirmed T-72 kills is fascinating ..and has better representation of force displacement than any of the major networks. Wow.

I seem to recall the Apache(s)? that went down were firing TOW missiles at tanks; probably T-72's? Can't confirm it, though, but if they were, they surely got a few. And given that we've lost a few tanks in combat (confirmed by american sources) I would expect and even assume Iraq has lost at least as many of their heavy rollers if not more.

I would, however, be eager to see evidence to the contrary, because I'd have to ask...what are the Iraqi tactics? It ain't easy to beat the M1...

Well, Reuters was reporting the driver of an M1 was killed (doesn't say how) and that the tank just kept going and went off a bridge. Other 3 guys in the tank drowned. It wasn't pulled out of the river it fell into for 3 days. I would be doubting that story if it wasn't on Reuters.

But it does seem that the Iraqis have been pretty inventive so far. They've spent the last decade preparing for this, after all. And we're operating off of strategies we used in a war game a couple of years ago where we got BEATEN by the vietnam-vet that was playing the part of Saddam. (Well, in the game we weren't fighting Iraq, just "some random arab country in the middle east near the gulf". Heh, but yeah..)

It makes sense about the T-72s, just because we've lost a few M1s doesn't mean they've necessarily engaged any T-72s... I'm pretty sure we've taken out lots and lots of T-55s, I'm sure they just found some tricky ways to take out the few M1s we've lost. The T-72s, though, they're probably saving them for what he talks about here:

"WHAT EXACTLY IS THE REPUBLICAN GUARD DOING?

People are trying to figure out the RG's strategy, and apparent moving around of units around Baghdad. It's kinda simple... outside the city the Guard has three really good armoured divisions (Hammurabi, Medina (probably the best) and Nidah). They are the units with those T-72s we were talking about. They also have two divisions of infantry, without significant armour or artillery assets, the Nebuchadnezzar and Baghdad. (If this was 1814, we'd call them the "Young Guard.") They're probably somewhat better than the regular army's worst units, and not as good as its best ones. The final two Republican Guard divisions outside Baghdad proper are still well to the north of the city, around Tikrit and Kirkuk... they're not particularly well-equipped units either. So practically all the Hussein regime's remaining fighting power is in those three armoured divisions.

The Iraqi strategy throughout has been first to delay the approach to Baghdad, and second to preserve their combat power. The Medina's taking the brunt of the Americans' air and artillery attack right now: the Hammurabi and Nidah are catching a bit, too, but they're still very much to the north and east of the city, and so largely out of helicopter and artillery range. As near as I can figure, Hammurabi's still watching for an airmobile deployment north of Karbala, while Nidah's positioning to catch the Americans with a counterstrike if they try to take the war across the Tigris at any point. In fact, the threats of counterstrike from those two units is what's basically hemming the Americans into the Euphrates Valley, forcing them to come through the Medina Division to get to Baghdad. (If the Americans had had a "second fist" ie, a second heavy division, they'd have more options right now, obviously: the Marines or 101st Airborne would have some trouble with a Republican Guard armoured division, but the 4th Mech Inf, for instance, certainly won't when it shows up.)

The Iraqis know that when the Medina and 3rd Inf divisions finally clash, the Medina Division will lose, and they will be forced to finally withdraw into Baghdad proper. So their one major move was to move forward their two weaker RG divisions, their Young Guard, on either flank of the Medina, to delay that decisive clash still further. (The Iraqis know if those two are destroyed the Medina can keep fighting, but not vice versa.) It's working... the Nebuchadnezzar and Baghdad Divisions' positions are now soaking off a lot of the air and ground combat power that would otherwise be focussed on the Medina. Lacking substantial armour or artillery support, they're speedbumps, really, but they are buying hours, even days of time with their lives."

Oh [URL=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2479.htm]this[/URL] is lovely...

Here we go, finally, they summed up all the losses so far. Preceeded with this little snippet that would explain why the official numbers are much lower:

"The official coalition losses are, to put it mildly, “falling behind” the actual figures. The 57 dead acknowledged by the coalition command reflect losses as of the morning of March 26. This information was provided to a BBC correspondent by one of the top medical officials at a field hospital in Al Kuwait during a confidential conversation. “We have standing orders to acknowledge only those fatalities that have been delivered to the hospital, identified and prepared to be sent back home. The identification process and the required standard embalming takes some time – occasionally up to several days. But only the command knows how many casualties we sustained today and you will learn about it in about three days…” [Reverse-translated from Russian] This conversation was taped by the journalist and sent to the editor via a cellular phone network."

So here it is:

"Based on the radio intercepts and internal information networks of the US field hospitals as of this morning the coalition losses include no less than 100 killed US servicemen and at least 35 dead British soldiers. Additionally, some 22 American and 11 British soldiers are officially considered to be missing in action and the whereabouts of another 400 servicemen are being established. The number of wounded has exceeded 480 people."

I found this interesting blog about the war casualties:
[url]http://warcasualties.blogspot.com/[/url]

Also, disx, what is the Russian site?

[URL=http://www.aeronautics.ru/]Russian Site[/URL]

[URL=http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/flit/]Flit[/URL] (Canadian Military Strategist Guy)

The other day I heard there were 24 dead British soldiers, but only 5 of them had been killed in action. Does that strike anyone else as being just a wee bit arse-backwards?

this is another vietnam, folks. some of the things they're saying, like the fact that after the najaf suicide bombing it's harder to tell civilians from fighters, the fact that the government is refusing to tolerate dissent, mccarthysim is rearing its ugly head, it's like we've learned nothing.

since the american revolution, a small, passionate, guerilla force more familiar with its home terrain has always beaten even the largest, most formidable, best organized army. it will happen again this time, and just like with vietnam, we'll pay the price for decades.

[URL=http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s822346.htm]echoes of my lai[/URL]

Yeah I find it amusing how people cry about Iraq not fighting this war 'fairly'. Welcome to the real world. You're saying the same thing the British said about us in the Revolution. An out-numbered, out-trained, out-tech'd and out-gunned people will do whatever it takes to defend their HOMES. They aren't fighting for Saddam, they're repelling people they perceive to be invaders, whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant - they see us as invaders, and hate us just as much as they hate Saddam. Killing children doesn't win you many friends.

whats the count up to now

I found a few interesting articles today that I felt were worth a look at:

[URL=http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/02/1048962796085.html]'I saw the heads of my two little girls come off'[/URL]

[URL=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2907375.stm]US warned over cluster weapons[/URL]

[URL=http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/02/international/worldspecial/02MILI.html]Iraqis Planning Protracted War[/URL]

You forgot this one:

[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2909425.stm[/url]

speaking of a media war

[URL=http://www.theonion.com/onion3912/i_should_not_be.html]READ THIS!!![/URL]

today we started using cluster bombs...we're already looking into 11 civilian deaths due to their use.

This is really fucking beautiful.. Christ...

"[URL=http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s823429.htm]Small bombs look like rations to Iraqi kids: UN[/URL] This happened in Afghanistan as well. The cluster bomblets are painted the same color and are about the same size as the food aid packets, and are even stamped with the same typeface. Unless a starving Iraqi (or Afghani) child can read English, they are likely to pick up an unexploded bomblet to see if it contains food, whereupon the bomblet explodes, crippling or killing the child."

Hahah, holy crap. On Lycos, Al Jazeera was searched for more than sex. That's some kind of record. Wow.[url]http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6225964%255E25777,00.html[/url]

Oh god damn... See.. All of us saying this war is for imperialism. Fucking right. Look at this twit admitting that we are engaging in WW IV and then trying to pretty it up by saying we're out to spread democracy and that we are on the side of the Arab people. LOL FUck off... God damn

[url]http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/04/03/sprj.irq.woolsey.world.war/index.html[/url]

Interesting....

"4/3/03 [URL=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2545.htm]The Defense of Baghdad - Special Military Report[/URL] There is something very weird going on in Baghdad. I hope those kids aren't walking into a trap. But maybe Saddam has decided to write Baghdad off, then wear down the US forces in the more rugged terrain of Iraq during the hottest part of summer. Or maybe that secret deal Rumsfeld keeps denying actually did go down and we are seeing the agreed-upon "victory", easy, clean, and (thankfully) bloodless."

I found this article to be particularly interesting. It is long, but well worth the read:
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,927849,00.html[/url]

"A child who only ever wanted to play with his older brother's marbles."

Oh my... Haha, I'm sorry.

"Any other even averagely intelligent US president would have probably done the very same things, but would have managed to smoke-up the glass and confuse the opposition. Perhaps even carry the UN with him. Bush's tactless imprudence and his brazen belief that he can run the world with his riot squad, has done the opposite. He has achieved what writers, activists and scholars have striven to achieve for decades. He has exposed the ducts. He has placed on full public view the working parts, the nuts and bolts of the apocalyptic apparatus of the American empire."

Exactly.

Fine article, I must add.

averagely intelligent?

................. What, exactly, is that in response to? Heh.

Oh fuck. Nevermind. Okay.

Averagely intelligent, you know, as opposed to not intelligent at all (Bush).

yeah i got the gist, i just thought i'd gnitpick. don't mind me.

An often overlooked casualty to this war will be the American economy. This article was rather interesting in explaining how both the war and Bush's idiotic policies will not spell good news for our economy:
[url]http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7544[/url]

i don't think it's being overlooked...i just think it's being overshadowed by the violence and killing. but you're right, there's that too. although there are ppl who speculate that the war is an attempt to jump start the economy, sort of WWII-style...if there's one thing these evil GOP bastards (TM) can do right, I thought, it's run a decent economy, and boosting the stock market etc., was a reason i have been given for a long time for their otherwise inexplicable evil. apparently, however, this was mistaken.

"although there are ppl who speculate that the war is an attempt to jump start the economy, sort of WWII-style..."

That happened because we had to suddenly go into war mode in the factories. Everything shifted from making regular products to churning out tanks and planes and feeding the war machine. As it is now, we already have all/most of the equipment we need, so there's nothing to produce. All it has done in this department is give the companies that make the missiles a bunch of money, but that's about it, hardly enough to jump-start the economy.

However, if they manage to take over the oil and turn it into a product we can export, then that should stabilize the economy for at least a few more years. If not that, we'll at least get Iraq back to using the dollar, as opposed to the Euro, and that should help a little bit.

The thing about the GOP helping the economy, well, why go through all the trouble? Easier to just reap in profits for themselves and their buddies. And that's exactly what this war is doing. Halliburton is making a killing in this war.

Isn't war [URL=http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm]beautiful[/URL]?

*sigh*

I don't see why the military needs to use cluster munitions in an urban area. If they're hitting civillians with those in cities, they seriously need to rethink their use. Never mind their worldwide condemnation.