[Moogs]

This is not intended to be a political thread.

We all have our own views and reasons, but none of us can deny the human toll on the Iraqi population. I try not to read these stories every day (to avoid depression) but try also not to ignore them, lest I become literally... ignorant. This one really bothers me. It bothers me that there have been so many bombings and horrible things, that somehow, this event in particular never stood out in my mind when it should have. The range of emotions I feel when I read this... the whole thing is just so fucked up. I hope you'll read it too, so at least - no matter if you think we should stay or go - you [at least] know the story.

From the NYT: If the cost of this war is measured in human lives, one block in southeast Baghdad has paid more than its share. On a hot morning two summers ago, 34 children were killed here in a flash of smoke and metal. They were scooping up candy thrown from an American Humvee. The suicide bomber’s truck never slowed down. More than 3,000 Iraqis are dying every month in this war — roughly the total deaths in the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or all the American troops killed since the war began. But behind the headlines and statistics, most of the war is experienced in Iraqi living rooms and on blocks like the one here, where families struggle with the intense pain of loss. And while American war planners discuss the way ahead, Iraqis on this scarred block are stuck in the past on the morning of July 13, 2005, when time stopped and the war truly began for them. “Our life now, it’s not a life, it’s a kind of dream,” said Qais Ataiwee Yaseen, whose two boys, ages 8 and 11, were killed that day. “Life has no taste. I even feel sick of myself.” In the early years of the war, the street — a dusty, trash-strewn strip of concrete that runs between Baghdad’s southeast highway and the neighborhood of Naariya — was mostly quiet, home to a mix of Shiite and Sunni families who had known each other for years. But the cruelty of the war intervened when the bomber struck, apparently aiming at a convoy of American Humvees parked at the end of the street. One American soldier and 34 Iraqis were killed. All were boys, and all but four were younger than 15. The youngest was 6. In all, 29 families lost children; one lost three sons. In the seconds after the explosion, the world narrowed to one child for Sattar Hashim, a 39-year-old security guard whose son had gone out to see the American patrol. Mr. Hashim moved frantically through the wreckage, just outside his front gate, a scene now burned into his memory. He found his son unconscious, his body torn by shrapnel. “I pray to God that no one in this world will ever have to face such a scene,” he said, remembering the scene as he sat in his sparely furnished living room with the curtains drawn. “As if they had been scattered on the ground. Legs. Arms. Heads. Bodies still burning.” His son died in a hospital operating room several hours after the explosion. Suicide bombings often stop clocks nearby, throwing the delicate mechanisms out of balance. The minute hand freezes the moment that the bomber detonates, and cleanup crews find clocks hanging crookedly on walls hours later, with the moment of loss fixed forever on the clocks’ faces. For the parents in Naariya, the clocks are frozen at a quarter after 10. The deaths that morning tore a hole in the life of the block, and more than a year later, many people have been unable to put their lives back together. Some have drifted away from their spouses. Others changed jobs or stopped going to work altogether. Reminders of the loss were everywhere: Class sizes were smaller. Soccer tournaments for 12-year-olds stopped. Bug collecting was no longer a hobby. The pain caused strange things to happen. Mr. Yaseen lost his knack for numbers and found himself fumbling in front of customers at the hardware store where he had worked for years. Eventually, he quit. Reading and writing became difficult for Zahra Hussein, the mother of 11-year-old Hamza. She had lost her ability to concentrate and some of her eyesight. Hadi Faris, Hamza’s father, stopped his work as a driver. He could not control his thoughts, and concentrating on the road and split- second decisions was too onerous. “I kept thinking how life is cheap, how so many innocent people are killed,” he said, sitting in front of a kerosene heater in a small guest room.

[Fahrenheit]

This may also be a good watch:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...+war+channel+4

[Moogs]

It most definitely is. Thank you. American TV news is a farce the way they sanitize everything to "protect the children". The only thing they protect is the government. The media should show us the TRUTH, and if you think your kid is too young to see it, then keep them away from the damn TV during news time. The whole thing is such a lame copout I can't stand it.

As if we should rely on network producers to raise / protect our kids. Do it yourself parents!

[Messiahtosh]

Originally Posted by Moogs It most definitely is. Thank you. American TV news is a farce the way they sanitize everything to "protect the children". The only thing they protect is the government. The media should show us the TRUTH, and if you think your kid is too young to see it, then keep them away from the damn TV during news time. The whole thing is such a lame copout I can't stand it. As if we should rely on network producers to raise / protect our kids. Do it yourself parents!

This was a New York Times article, FYI. The NEW YORK TIMES....historic, popular, widely read...

[Brad]

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh This was a New York Times article, FYI.

Not the video in Rob Dobbs' post to which he was replying. That was from Channel 4, a British network.

Originally Posted by Messiahtosh The NEW YORK TIMES....historic, popular, widely read...

But not nearly so much as the "nightly news" for a huge segment of Americans. Have you ever seen any honest, complete coverage like this in a widely viewed American news show? Even "serious" news shows like 20/20, 60 Minutes, and Dateline just barely scratch the surface of topics like this.

[Moogs]

Brad nailed it.

Chris, I realize you're going into the Marines and all -God Bless you and good luck if you make it through training and get stationed over there (seriously)- but reading it isn't the same as seeing it happen in a TV news or documentary environment.

TV news has an obligation to not shovel sanitized stories in front of everyone but they do it anyway, under the guise of "protecting kids". Meanwhile every other show on TV is violent or shows willful disregard of one human being for another, including reality shows. Anyway this is about the stories like this that never get national TV coverage. If they did get it, we'd be in a very different situation right now most likely because people get off their ass and take a stand.

That's the reason there are protests in every country but ours (against the government, not the troops necessarily); they all see it and we don't. We're less educated -as a people- about our own war than just about every other industrialized country in the world it seems like... not good. Anyway, this is about this story and wanting people to read it and understand what this war is really like over there. If you do go hopefully you never have to see anything like this and come back safe to annoy us with more bold Macworld predictions. Seriously, all differences aside I wish you a safe return if that's where you want to be.

[drewprops]

I like watching Frontline for an in-depth examination of a topic. It's set to air a new episode on the return of the Taliban this week, something regionally relevant to this conversation. There was a very interesting quote from a journalist in a recent airing of Meet the Press. The guy said that in the West people tell you the truth off the record and lie on the record. In the Middle East, he said, people tell you lies off the record and tell the truth on the record, through their actions.

Oh what innocents we were heading back in time to the 12th century, so chronologically unprepared.

[Moogs]

Heheh. Interesting points. Hadn't thought of that.

[Naderfan]

Thanks for posting that...it's so hard to read, but so necessary. I get really sick of people (including my inlaws) complaining about how the U.S. media only reports on the negative side of Iraq and not about "all the good stuff we're doing." They seem to have no concept that there's just a lot of horror going on, that we are, at the end of the day, responsible for, and we're not even hearing the half of it.

I think it just gets so hard for us to comprehend the death and destruction there. 3,000 a MONTH for civilians...that's just out of reach for me. I really hope and pray that there is some solution out there and that we find it soon.

[GladToBeHere]

According to Wikipedia, total civilian deaths in World War II were 32,327,000 over six years. That's just under 45,000 a month, roughly.

In the Civil War, about 110,000 died from battle, 250,000 from disease. Over the four years of the war, that amounts to roughly 2291 monthly, for those in combat. 7500 monthly if you include those from disease.

Vietnam? About 58,000 total. Considering this statistic include all official deaths from about 1956-1998, the average monthly death rate is about 115. If we look at the "official" 1959-1975 dates, the monthly death toll is about 302.

Though the statistic is a bit old, in 2001, 42,000 people died in the US from car accidents. That's about 3500 a month.

No moral stand-- just offering some perspective. We seem to have far less tolerance for death in war now. What are the potential consequences?

[billybobsky]

GTBH, WWII had an acceptable amount of civilian death? And here I thought the Holocaust and Japanese retribution on other Asians was the ultimate example of bad things...

[GladToBeHere]

I don't see the word "acceptable" in my post. But, I'll take the bait.

Determining what is "acceptable" is a value judgment. To use your word to think about this-- the standard that determines what is "acceptable" changes over time because it's largely contextually based. When faced with tough decisions, what people are willing to endure changes, too. We need to be aware that our perspective is largely constrained by our place in history and that we need to be careful not to impose current beliefs when we look into the past.

Please read my post carefully and don't read into it. You are judging me for things you think I have said. In years past, that would be enough for me to challenge you to a duel and kill you in public. Hm... how times change.

That said-- once again, I'm more interested in what the potential consequences are of a conflict between two very different perspectives on life and war.

[AsLan^]

I think to properly put it into perspective, some kind of deaths/km squared calculation needs to be done.

There's lot of death to squeeze into very few cities right now

[Naderfan]

Also, WWII covers so much more than just one country/one army.

When you have 6 million Jews killed alone...plus two atomic bombs, I think that skews things quite a bit.

I think of your statistics, Vietnam would be the most comparable to the situation in Iraq, and according to your numbers, the civilian death rate was much much lower per month than what we're seeing in Iraq.

And I hope the reason why we're less tolerant of casualties in war is because we're finally starting to come to the realization that there has to be other ways to deal with the situations and that war should be an absolute last resort. It could also be that with the advent of TV, we're force to actually face the consequences of war...it's not just words on a page or even a photograph. And I think that's a good thing.

[AsLan^]

My problem is that wars seem to have become far deadlier for civilians than soldiers, which may have been true throughout history but it doesn't make sense to me.

World wide advances in warfighting technology and strategy should result in less civilian death, not more!

[GladToBeHere]

I agree about the tolerance for killing. But again, what are the consequences when one side pulls punches and the other will escalate, apparently, to no end?

[billybobsky]

Sorry GTBH, I moved your term tolerance to acceptable... Because acceptable is on the tolerance scale, I felt reasonably justified...

What we are seeing here is civilian death due to causes other than famine and direct military action on the part of major participants... In essence, we are seeing an Urban Guerilla Civil War (oh no, the CW word came out). And while Vietnam could have been a civil war had the pro-French, er US, side actually have popular support, it really wasn't, and the death toll on civilians reflects that...

[AsLan^]

Originally Posted by GladToBeHere I agree about the tolerance for killing. But again, what are the consequences when one side pulls punches and the other will escalate, apparently, to no end?

I'm afraid you'll have to put names to those faces... who's escalating and who's pulling punches?

[billybobsky]

Yeah, seriously, I thought all four sides were kinda going for blood...five... (forgot about the Kurds)...

[GladToBeHere]

Ugh. I'm not being political-- just thinking about war as a part of human history. I argue both sides to myself, but since no one here seems to do the same, I seem like a hawk, I guess.

[AsLan^]

Since no one here considers both sides!

You obviously don't argue on the internet much, you're not supposed to play your hand until you see what the other guys got

[alcimedes]

Originally Posted by billybobsky What we are seeing here is civilian death due to causes other than famine and direct military action on the part of major participants... In essence, we are seeing an Urban Guerilla Civil War (oh no, the CW word came out). And while Vietnam could have been a civil war had the pro-French, er US, side actually have popular support, it really wasn't, and the death toll on civilians reflects that...

Actually that's not correct. The terrorists (Sunni/Shia) are specifically targeting civilians.

[GladToBeHere]

I guess not. Like I said, I'm not being political. Just thinking.

[GladToBeHere]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Actually that's not correct. The terrorists (Sunni/Shia) are specifically targeting civilians.

So, here it is again-- do people today have the stomach for a fight in which the other side is willing to kill whomever they want? If killing is bad-- is it bad enough to intervene and get your own hands dirty?

[billybobsky]

Originally Posted by alcimedes Actually that's not correct. The terrorists (Sunni/Shia) are specifically targeting civilians.

By terrorists, you mean Partisans, right?

They are using Guerilla (terrorist) tactics against other Partisans, or what would be termed civilians if they could see through rose colored glasses...

This is more than just semantics, what is essentially happening is a giant embroilled mafia family war... They are attacking people they believe to be associated with the other family, essentially anyone NOT their religion...

[GladToBeHere]

Originally Posted by billybobsky By terrorists, you mean Partisans, right? They are using Guerilla (terrorist) tactics against other Partisans, or what would be termed civilians if they could see through rose colored glasses... This is more than just semantics, what is essentially happening is a giant embroilled mafia family war... They are attacking people they believe to be associated with the other family, essentially anyone NOT their religion...

Now that's interesting-- "partisans." So all sides are equivalent because they have their own point of view?

[AsLan^]

Originally Posted by GladToBeHere So, here it is again-- do people today have the stomach for a fight in which the other side is willing to kill whomever they want? If killing is bad-- is it bad enough to intervene and get your own hands dirty?

Obviously we do, because that is happening right now and some people still defend the war.

[GladToBeHere]

If they are "attacking people they believe to be associated with the other family, essentially NOT their religion," is this partisanship (aka a chess opponent) or a terrorist?

[billybobsky]

Originally Posted by GladToBeHere Now that's interesting-- "partisans." So all sides are equivalent because they have their own point of view?

If it stops the blood letting, (and from an outside view point), yes.

[billybobsky]

Originally Posted by GladToBeHere If they are "attacking people they believe to be associated with the other family, essentially NOT their religion," is this partisanship (aka a chess opponent) or a terrorist?

It is partisanship and it uses terrorist tactics...

Edit: Where mid-century mafia families terrorists or partisans?