Why does * admin hide Iraqi killed count?

[waywest]

In another post, someone opined that the Iraq war was revenge for 911. I realize that a good number of Americans are led to feel that way, but what happens when they learn the numbers of Iraqis killed? Will their revenge be satisfied? Or will this be a 10 for 1 type of deal?

[NMDemDist2]

1. they aren't "hiding' it, they just feel Iraqis are important enough to

count. I did read somewhere tho that by the Geneva Conventions the "occupying force" is supposed to keep track of those numbers. :shrug:

[jobycom]

2. Our leaders don't even know OUR casualty rates

And Rumsfield has said we don't bother counting theirs.

[catmandu57]

6. Yes we are being lied to

we don't even have an accurate count of our dead, I believe there's an ice box somewhere full of American dead.
As for Iraqi's they don't care, they've classified them as subhuman and bumps in the road. Hundreds of thousands in gw1, hundreds of thousands between then and now, tens of thousands now, and millions in the future when the depleted uranium catches up to them.

[jobycom]

8. I was talking about Wolfowitz's not knowing the American casualties

But I'm suspicious about the number reported, too. I've read foreign accounts of journalists stumbling across burned out vehicles and seeing no mention of the incident in official military disclosures.

I don't know that there were hundreds of thousands of casualties between GW1 and GW2. Most of the attacks I remember were limited and low key. There was a horrific amount of death due to our destruction of their infrastructure and the contamination of the water and air in Iraq, and as you point out, the DU contamination we are spreading now is likely to blast Iraq back to the stone ages, or at least create an environmental disaster similar to the Aral Sea or the Chernobyl regions.

We have laid the seeds for complete genocide and depopulation of Iraq, and I have a sick feeling that this is deliberate. This nation was built upon one genocide, and it looks like we are in the midst of another.

[buddhamama]

3. Powell

once said (paraphrasing) 'We don't keep a count of enemy dead'
that was during the Gulf War.

Not too smart of the Administration to leave that comment out there.
according to Bush et al the Iraqi people aren't the enemy,
we're their to liberate them and bring freedom and democracy to their country. The enemies now are the 'terrorists' who are taking advantage of the lack of security to spread discontent etc etc.

We should be keeping a count and apologizing for the innocent, civilian deaths.

[CulturalNomad]

4. Iraqi dead

With Iraq being the frontline in the 'war on terror' an idea repeatedly forwarded by the Bushies, how can the revenge thesis not be valid? As far as a number of Iraqi dead is concerned I really feel horribly cynical about this but I really don't think that a large bulk of Americans will care - those who were opposed to the war and/or had some misgivings may care but not the bubbas of the country to whom Iraqi are ungrateful wretches whose deaths are easily shunned aside as collateral damage.

[havocmom]

5. They do not let facts interfere with their opinions, policies, spin,

or the effect of their propaganda on the masses.

Anything they repeat over and over is supposed to be accepted as fact despite any evidence to the contrary. Anything they refuse to acknowledge, despite any evidence, simply doesn't exist.

In most cultures, that is considered evidence of mental instability or illness. To neocons, it is brilliant leadership. Thus, the mess we are in.

edit: to correct ommission of a word and typos.... I need new glasses

[jobycom]

7. I'm not sure why we'd get revenge on Iraq for 9-11, but FOX News

once reported the casualties in Iraq as around 100k, and that was before "Mission Accomplished." I think they were speculating, but the reports are that the troop casualties in Iraq are in the high tens of thousands, at least, and the civilian casualties have been reported as between 9K and 11K, and that's a verifiable conservative count.

So we've "avenged" three to four times the number of dead with civilian deaths, and 30 times with all deaths (and why people don't consider the other troops as people, I'm not sure).

Of course, avenging 9-11 by killing Iraqi civilians would be about like destroying all of New York to avenge a murder in South Africa, so I don't see how this has anything to do with revenge. It's just some sick bloodlust with no justification on any level.

[phatkatt]

12. They weren't speculating they were BRAGGING!

"We really done kicked some sandni**er ass! Yeee Haw!!!!"

[jobycom]

13. Yeah, true

That was the tone of their reporting. I only meant that it was just a guess, not a firm count.

[camero]

9. Because deliberately killing civilians is a war crime

Their revenge will never be satisfied because they just like to kill.

[xchrom]

10. why do they hide everything?

it's their nature to control information -- as much as possible.
and the media -- being a direct arm of this admin -- plays the role perfectly.

[jmowreader]

11. Because they don't know what it is

Example: one of Chalabi's guys says that this complex right here (points at a group of buildings on a map) is the 1st Special Republican Guard direct-support maintenance facility. All of the 1st SRG's tanks are kept at third shop (which isn't so much different from anyone else's army--tanks love being worked on) so if we bomb that area we'll knock out 100-percent of the 1st SRG's armor capability.

Not a bad mission, right? Unfortunately, immediately to the east is an elementary school and immediately to the west is a hospital; neither of them were in Chalabi's guy's report (possibly because the hospital belongs to the Kurdish church and the school is attended by Shia)--and both of those buildings got hit in the strike.

We don't know how many people were in the school, in the hospital or in the third-shop complex. They're all torn to shreds. There's no way we can get an accurate body count.

[funkybutt]

14. that too is against the Geneva Convention?

i heard Randi Rhodes say that not counting civilian casualties is against the Geneva Convention. Anyone know if that's true?