Occupation Report
The postwar war claims 10 more casualties: six British, four Iraqi.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I dunno Ron, should we count the number of dead Iraqis, too?
Nah
Joe,
Ron Bailey's comment cannot possibly be read to either state or imply that the Iraqi's shouldn't be counted.
And, Saddam's murder rate can only be taken to mean his murder of Iraqis, so I guess I don't understand your point.
ECS,
I read his comment as suggesting that 12 (Western) deaths in 3 days is low, compared to what happened under Saddam. I was pointing out that using the number 12 as a comparison in wrong, since those are certainly not the only people to die violently during that period. OK?
PS, Ron, my comment can also be read as an accusation of racism. That was not my intent.
Joe,
The only one who used the figure of 12 was the anonymous "British Vietnam" poster.
Ron Bailey's comment is moronic. Saddam wasn't killing American soldiers. His "liberated" people are.
Further, does Bailey mean to say that, so long as American deaths are at a lower rate than Iraqi civilian deaths allegedly once were, the occupation is a success?
civilian deaths under Hussein, that is
How many people are dying there now or died there previously is irrelevant. Whether or not this war was justified is. Pre-emptive actions on other states based on intelligence that can't ID an embassy from a cork screw is such a dangerous way to go as a nation. We cannot liberate all oppressed people, to answer to the comment about how many iraqis died under SH. So what? What did we do for the poor souls in Sierra Leone when their arms and legs were being whacked off? We seem to pick and choose the humanitarian efforts we're willing to contribute to. That does not makes us a heroic nation who liberates the underlings by any stretch. It just proves that when we do get involved, there is probably some evile underlying motive.
Ha, Ha, Ha! "we seem to pick and choose the humanitarian efforts we're willing to contribute to" welcome to the real world honey. Yeah, Doctors without Borders (MSF), Oxfam, a lot of inner city teachers, the Allies fighting the Germans...what a bunch of assholes. If only they were as enlightened as O'Michele and picked and chose to do nothing for anyone, ever.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/opinion/25FRIE.html
http://billmon.org/archives/000279.html
Iraq / Ireland, po-tay-to / po-tah-to
Another 6? X Almighty, that's a dozen in the past three days. This is like the British Vietnam.
How does that number compare to Saddam's daily average rate of murder?
Remember six is a statistic. Six million is a holocaust.
10, its almost like the beltway snipers