Won't have any effect, except maybe "THIS IS MORE REASON FOR MORE TROOPS MORE VIOLENCE MORE DEATH!" sentiment that somehow always prevails.
4000 US troops dead in Iraq
Quote:
Free Life wrote: I also wonder how many innocent Iraqis died
If some sectors of the Iraqi population are assumed to be "innocent" does this imply that another sector of the population are then in fact "guilty"? And if so "guilty" of what? Does perceived guilt not contribute to the arguement that justified the invasion in the first place?
playinghob wrote:
Quote:
Free Life wrote: I also wonder how many innocent Iraqis diedIf some sectors of the Iraqi population are assumed to be "innocent" does this imply that another sector of the population are then in fact "guilty"? And if so "guilty" of what? Does perceived guilt not contribute to the arguement that justified the invasion in the first place?
Playinghob, I think you looked way to much into that. I assume the poster was referring to how many Iraqis died in general, and put the word "innocent" in front of it to make a political point.
To answer your question, tho...
Iraq body count says 60,000 - 70,000 http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
And an MIT University study puts the total at over 1/2 million http://web.mit.edu/cis/human-cost-war-101106.pdf
I think as far as America goes what is more significant than how many died is how many extremely damaged human beings are going to be tossed into an economy in the middle of a full blown recession. Finding a job in a year from now is going to be hard enough without missing an arm or leg.
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
I think as far as America goes what is more significant than how many died is how many extremely damaged human beings are going to be tossed into an economy in the middle of a full blown recession. Finding a job in a year from now is going to be hard enough without missing an arm or leg.
Already the amount of homeless veterans on the streets has skyrocketed. I know this is common sense on an anarchist website, but it really a fucking crime to see the state use soldiers like that and then just toss them to the side once they're no longer useful.
ncwob wrote:
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
I think as far as America goes what is more significant than how many died is how many extremely damaged human beings are going to be tossed into an economy in the middle of a full blown recession. Finding a job in a year from now is going to be hard enough without missing an arm or leg.Already the amount of homeless veterans on the streets has skyrocketed. I know this is common sense on an anarchist website, but it really a fucking crime to see the state use soldiers like that and then just toss them to the side once they're no longer useful.
Yep, there must be about 10 times that number seriously wounded, not to mention those permanently fucked in the head with PTSD, etc.
without appearing heartless, the number of US soldier whose lives have been saved will present an enormous burden on the US economy with health care and lifetime pension costs. Total estimates for the war, including medical and pension costs, have now been estimated at 3 trillion.
Black Man v White Woman, ie, the democratic circus with its various acts, is now the headline news in the US with the war in Iraq relegated almoost to nothing.
All the US bourgeosie, including the above 2, have no intention of retreating from Iraq, In this sense, Bush's "5 year anniversery" speech was correct. They are on the right track, they are there to impose their domination and, messy or not, that is the role of US imperialism.
The recent "successes" that have been trumpeted (not by the US military) is down the country being effectively ethnically cleansed and divided up and thus easier to manage, and a certain success of greater US troop numbers, equipment and deployment. The number of returning Iraqi's - increasingly being kicked out of Syria and Jordan - doesn't include the numbers that, despite the problems they will encounter, return to refugeedom. Far greater apparantly (channel 4 news) than those who stay.
I don't see anything wrong with calling innocent civilians killed, innocent?
Another succes that seems to be turning to dust is the "Awakening" movement, ie, Sunni's working for the US at a price. They mostly haven't been paid and many have been "on strike" lately. Al Quaeda largely doesn't exist in Iraq.
ncwob wrote:
EdmontonWobbly wrote:
I think as far as America goes what is more significant than how many died is how many extremely damaged human beings are going to be tossed into an economy in the middle of a full blown recession. Finding a job in a year from now is going to be hard enough without missing an arm or leg.Already the amount of homeless veterans on the streets has skyrocketed. I know this is common sense on an anarchist website, but it really a fucking crime to see the state use soldiers like that and then just toss them to the side once they're no longer useful.
and the other stuff the state does isn't criminal?!
Would it be ok if after a career as imperialism bootboy they got a a semidetached in the suburbs and healthcare?
Tacks wrote:
I'm not saying the soldiers deserve to live in poverty, i'm saying there is no right way to run the army; it's illegitimate.
So? 
Sorry, honestly don't get the point you're making. I mean if he'd said something about people getting underpaid, would you have said that asking for higher wages is legitimising wage labour?
Come on, ese, you're the new face of Platformism in England, we expect higher standards. 
Jack wrote:
Tacks wrote:
I'm not saying the soldiers deserve to live in poverty, i'm saying there is no right way to run the army; it's illegitimate.So?
Sorry, honestly don't get the point you're making. I mean if he'd said something about people getting underpaid, would you have said that asking for higher wages is legitimising wage labour?
My only point was about the language used; the fact that the state uses then dumps its soldiers is not particularly 'criminal' - the way it was put suggested there is good way to run an army, nay, govt. I know that isn'tn the posters intention and i got their point - i was just being a pedant, in the same way i go on about people saying it was a 'brutal arrest' suggesting their is a good way to arrest someone. Not a serious point. I resent you drawing this out ಠ_ಠ
GENERAL TOMMY FRANKS wouldn't stand for this shit and neither will I.
Quote:
Come on, ese, you're the new face of Platformism in England, we expect higher standards.
Oh christ no 
Tacks wrote:
My only point was about the language used; the fact that the state uses then dumps its soldiers is not particularly 'criminal' - the way it was put suggested there is good way to run an army, nay, govt. I know that isn'tn the posters intention and i got their point - i was just being a pedant, in the same way i go on about people saying it was a 'brutal arrest' suggesting their is a good way to arrest someone.
Nah, disagree. I've been arrested both politely and brutally. I'm perfectly happy to say I prefered it nicely, and if there was benefit to be gotten in saying how cuntish it was when I was being arrested violently, I don't think it would be somehow legitimising the arrest. Saying how fucking revolting it is that these lads are being dumped on the streets with inadequate provision doesn't really legitimise the occupation of Iraq or anything..
Quote:
Not a serious point. I resent you drawing this out ಠ_ಠ
You did kinda jump on the guy for saying something pretty innocuous, dude.
Quote:
Oh christ no
Well following in the illustrious shoes of Dundee United and Bobby, did you expect an easy ride?
jef costello wrote:
According to the French paper I read today there have been 30,000 US casualties of which a third are "mutile ou informe" mutile would mean a loss of anything from a finger to all your limbs and infirme would be more likely to translate as disabled.
99% of those are just cuts and bruises
I can count the number of fatalities on one hand
Dude. You're all over the place. The statements weren't in the same post.
And you quoted it before I editted to UK and fixed it, bah.
You're the new face of UK Platformism. Following a trend recent other UK Platformists who have emerged recently on libcom, said stupid crap, and got called on it.
Don't worry tho, compared to Bobby's "we can't support traffic wardens" and Dundee's frankly sectionable lunacy, you're doing pretty well. 
Jack wrote:
And you quoted it before I editted to UK and fixed it, bah.
gotcha
Quote:
Don't worry tho, compared to Bobby's "we can't support traffic wardens" and Dundee's frankly sectionable lunacy, you're doing pretty well. :)
I think we'd all do well to separate the man from the manifesto, iyswim.
Would you want others to judge sf (and English anarcho-syndicalism) on you and the button's posts here? That's not a dig at you, you are just the most prominent posters on this forum (yes i know Button's left now). I have always found it easier to make calls on either face to face meetings or the individuals involvement in campaigns
Also, bobby is a WSM member so even if we decided 'posts on libcom' were the deciding factor on a group, we'd have what, 50 other WSM posters here over and above him?
Not as bad as Vietnam but significant. Is this likely to have any kind of effect?