Iraq Body Count

This morning I was watching CBC and one of the guys was interviewing Scott Lipscomb, one of the creators of Iraq Body Count. His questions were tricky and tripping and I was wondering what the journalist really wanted; I mean, it’s his job to inquire, but I was getting kind of upset because I had the feeling he was minimizing the impact of the civilian deaths in Iraq.

The facts are simple: The count goes up to more than 500 civilian casualties in this war and that is all that matters. But the worse thing is that this number could be much smaller than the real one and I don’t see anything but its coming up every day with so much bombing of public places where normal people, like you and I, are living their lives in the country of Iraq… While Saddam is nowhere in sight.

On Sunday I was checking the news and I had to see a man putting dead children bodies in one of those big drawers at the morgue. Children, for God’s sake! I started crying and Patrice turned the TV off, but I told him we could not be blind to the reality of war. It makes me sick, totally sick! If this means liberation, if this means freedom… I certainly don’t want any operations. And Iraq won’t be the only one, that is the scarier part. Look out for Syria and Iran, they have been kind of warned.

Words to live by?: “The Iraqis are sick people and we are the chemotherapy,” said Corporal Ryan Dupre. “I am starting to hate this country. Wait till I get hold of a friggin’ Iraqi. No, I won’t get hold of one. I’ll just kill him.”

I may make myself hugely unpopular here, but journalists aren’t always interested in the truth unfortunately, especially in times like this when the subject matter goes against popular belief.

What Tracey says is true - it’s also possible that the reporter is one of many who feel that, while any death (especially civilian death) is tragic, 500 in a war doesn’t really hold a candle to the 6000-7000 children that die in Iraq EVERY MONTH due to the conditions they are living in.

While I feel a deep sense of grief for everyone loosing people in this war - Iraq, the US, Britian - all of them, I do feel that the sacriface of the few for the good of the many is a reasonable and realistic goal. I’m sure there’s no one hoping to be caught in “cross-fire” today - I’d also be willing to bet that many of the people Iraq will loose in this war would agree with the American’s that will be lost - if this will save the lives of millions of children, then it’s worth the risk.

A true journalist wouldn’t worry about the “party line”… these days we don’t have true journalists, we have talking heads. We are only shown what the officials want us to see… unless you go digging for the real story.

The comments on this entry have caught me in the middle of a bad day, but heck… I will say what I think.

I will make as if I didn’t read your comment, Daphne. It’s just so… I don’t even have words to explain it. Sacrificing innocent lives for what, you said? 6000 children dying in Iraq every what? Because of what? Oh yes! The sanctions impossed over Iraq… Now I get it. But hey! I mean, killing all these people is “good” because it’s going to make the world a safer place. Like Chandler would say in “Friends”: Oooookeyyyy…

WAR IS WRONG. IT KILLS PEOPLE. INNOCENT PEOPLE MOST OF THE TIME. NO MATTER HOW YOU PUT IT.

Your little discourse sounded Machiavelic. The end justifies the means. Realistic goals? It is easy to talk about realistic goals when you’re not one of the human targets in Baghdad or your house hasn’t been destroyed by a “military error”; to put it on your side of the fence, it is easy to talk about goals when it is not your husband or your kid fighting a war they’re probably just obliged to fight.

Worth the risk? My God… It hurts. Since when murder is justified? Ask Osama, because I just don’t have the answer right now. 500 deaths? 2 deaths? 1 death? Numbers don’t matter… they are deaths, for God’s sake!

Someone asked me to “think about the children who die in Iraq because of Saddam.”

Personally, I’d rather die by the hands of my own government than by some rogue invading barbarians like the US.

I really want to see Daphne’s source for her 6000-7000 children per month estimate. This is such a ridiculously inflated number that I can’t even believe she didn’t choke while writing it.

Daphne, it would serve you better to use facts rather than hyperbole to defend your position. Here’s a good place to start.

Aside from the fact that 6,000 to 7,000 deaths of children per month is an absolute unreality, the deaths of Iraqi children that have occurred have been largely due to sanctions.

No one is arguing that the Iraqi regime is blameless. No one is arguing that it’s not an oppressive and dangerous regime. However, many of us are arguing that violent overthrow of the regime by an outside force (taking many civilian, as well as innocent military, lives in the process) is not the way to establish peace and stability.

Thanks for your posts, Bea.

Here’s some more information for Daphne:

http://www.nonviolence.org/vitw/pages/myth_reality.html

Well, I was getting a little worried over what I might say to the first couple of comments here Bea, but you, along with DruBlood and Patty have pretty much skipped the profanities that were going through my brain and said it much more eloquently than I would have. Great post Bea. Excellent comments Bea, DruBlood, Beverly and Patty!! Bravo to each of you. I can’t let myself off quite that easy though, so I will just add, it is not difficult to see where the problems in the U.S. originate after having read some of those early comments.

Considering about 500000 civilians have been killed as a direct consequence of saddams regime in the mereley 20 years he has been in government, i think some of the perspective easily is lost when the war is upon us…
Now the war is about to reach an end, Iraqs terrorregime has lost the grip on its population and the coalition has established a solid foothold in the capital.
Its time to sum of the losses.
Official sources tell us that the civilian deaths of this war is reported to be 961-1139 this far.
Of course every death is a tragedy, but democracy doesnt always come for free, something history is maybe the best example of.

Of course.. war is bad.. but what would be the alternative? 10 more year under saddams iron fist? 20? 500000 more civilans, kurds, political opponents, slaughtered without cause or trial?
And after saddam finally collapsed of old age, what then? Most likely would his son take over.. a son the if possible is even worse…

Its important to see beyond the tensity of the moment and see things in perspective. Most people that do that will tend to realize that this war is perhaps the best thing thats happened iraq in over 20 years.

Ok.. it was the US that put saddam where he is today. Therefore I think its only fair they finally get the chance to correct that error.