<font color=skyblue>

I was thinking this morning about Iraqi death toll....

If the Iraqis put up some kind of tough resistance to the end, I fear a great deal of the Iraqi male population will die. I haven't seen any question of this area posed to the Allied Generals.

</font>

Yeah good point, but it's the victors who write the history books isn't it?. So I'm sure the coalition generals aren't too worried.

A perfect example is Richard III, portrayed in history and in shakespeare as a deformed character with a hump back who ate children (virtually).
Actual research shows this is all exagerated to the extreme by the Lancaster side after they won the wars of the roses. (Early spin doctors?).

They aren't killing off the male population! There are those in the regular army who aren't fighting (I hesitate to use the word surrender) and the Kurds in the mountains. I am sure there will be others who are not loyal to Saddam who don't think he is worth dying for.

Revising history is irrelevant when so many media outlets (on both sides) are filming in the field, and it's also not relevant to the question of Iraqi casualties.

What is historically relevant is that in the past wars typically did cause the decimation of a generation of a countries male population. While this has never caused a population to fail, it certainly is just one more tragic reality of war. It's not coincidence that for hundreds of years there was a trend for wars to occur on about a 15-20 year frequency.

Given the propensity for Iraqi troops to exercise good sense and surrender when they're in an impossible situation, I think the point is moot. This war will serve to eliminate the undesireable fanatics in Iraq and leave the young men who will be needed to rebuild and guide their country into freedom and prosperity. It will be amazing to see how much better the Iraqi's will live when the resources of their nation aren't wasted building estates for an elite who cares not a whit for their wellbeing.

[ 03-24-2003, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[quote]Originally posted by Thoran:
Revising history is irrelevant when so many media outlets (on both sides) are filming in the field, and it's also not relevant to the question of Iraqi casualties. [/QUOTE

That's a good Point Thoran, the media in battle certainly is a recent thing, well with video cameras anyway. There were official war photographers as far back as the crimean war, and journalists went out in the napoleonic wars too.
That said, the camera can show pretty much what you want it to show.

I don't think it is fair to wish death on young men whos upbringing has been totally different from ours just because they don't agree with you.
As for resources, I read somewhere that in the US, 3% of the population own 70% of the wealth (this figure may be a few percent off but you get my point I'm sure).

Ouch Thoran... :(

They're fanatics because they have been fanatized ! Is it their fault ?

"Eliminate"...tough word for my poor hippie ears :(

Give them a chance to change at least. Any man can change.

There's a difference between official war photographers/chroniclers and independant media, some embedded in front line units and some wandering around on their own. There are certainly enough viewpoints between Al-Jazeera and FoxNews to provide a balanced view of what is happening in this conflict.

And with regards to young men growing up with a different viewpoint, well I've no problem with this. My problem is with fanatics, IMO if a person feels that they're entitled to fifty virgins when they die, we can rest assured that once they're dead they'll be in a better place, and this world will be just a bit less radical. It's a win-win situation. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I sincerely do feel bad for men who've been brainwashed by their brutal government into protecting a man who would gladly sacrifice them in a vain effort to save his hide, but that doesn't change my opinion. Anyone who could blindly defend a government who brutalizes their own people would be VERY difficult to deprogram.

<font color=orange>I can't find fault for those that are fighting for their people, but I can find fault with those that are fighting so that they can continue to torture their fellow citizens. That's what Saddam's Feyideen (or how ever you spell it) and Special Republican Guard are fighting for. Do you really want such as that in your Utopia?</font>

<font color=plum>However - unlike the general population in Iraq - ANYBODY in America could concievably become part of that 3%.

Bill Gates was just a typical computer geek/nerd in high school...but he and his best buddy came up with an innovative computer operating system. Now he is the richest man in the world.

Many kids that grow up in severe poverty go on to become multi-millionaires if they have enough athletic skill to become a professional sports figure.

It IS true that the "Rich" people hold onto their wealth with a very tight-fisted grip and use all their considerable resources to combat anyone who would try to take it away. Microsoft has become outrageously "proprietary" with their software..to the point that you have to buy separate copies of any program for EACH computer you wish to put it on. But it is that determination and tenaciousness that allowed them to become rich in the first place.

The difference being that America is the "Land of Opportunity" as opposed the "Land of Oppression" that represents the general population of Iraq.</font>

Ouch Thoran... :(

They're fanatics because they have been fanatized ! Is it their fault ?

"Eliminate"...tough word for my poor hippie ears :(

Give them a chance to change at least. Any man can change.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes I realize it's fairly cold (probably moreso than I actually feel), however I don't believe we should endanger anyone in order to try to disarm these nuts peacefully. If they want to drive around in SUV's with automatic weapons harassing our supply lines, then they should be targeted.

As I said above, I do feel bad for the brainwashing these young men have received, but that still doesn't change my mind regarding how we'll need to deal with them. IMO fanaticism in all it's forms is bad and should be either eliminated or reduced to the point where it ceases to be a factor in society. I'm not just talking about Islamic fundamentalism either (although that's one of the more signifiant threats these days), I'm talking about anyone who blindly follows ANYTHING. I'm talking about White Supremicists, Black Supremicists, NOW radical feminists, Militant Jewish/Christian/Islamic/Hindu/(insert any religion here) organizations, Fringe Conservatives, Fringe Liberals, etc... I reject pretty much any group that thinks they have all the answers and the right to force those answers down MY throat.

This war is going to give the Iraqi people the right to choose their own destiny and not have pain and suffering forced down their throats by a brutal dictator and his blind supporters. I don't know Pres. Bush's real reasons for this conflict, and I certainly don't agree with his timing... but now that we're into it I can only hope for a positive outcome for the Iraqi people who've suffered long and hard under Saddam's "leadership".