Tim Blair

Each death is tragic, but it's hard not to think that it's better for people to die taking the fight to the terrorists than for them to die fearfully in their home cities.

On S11 a handful of terrorists killed three thousand. Very likely there are now many more than 1,000 dead on the terrorist side.

It seems that there have been far more civilians killed than soldiers, and you would think that those would count for more.

It will be very unwise for Kerry to dance on the grave of US servicemen.

Yes Michael. It does seem that way doesn't it?

"Each death is tragic, but it's hard not to think that it's better for people to die taking the fight to the terrorists than for them to die fearfully in their home cities."

Absolutely.

The way our press and 'activists' talk about the number of dead US soldiers makes me ill. They care about our dead soldiers only because they are numbers to be added up. They hope if the numbers get high enough, we'll realize we're wrong to try and fight back.

As someone who has family members in this current war, I don't take the deaths of any soldiers lightly. However, I'd much prefer our soldiers be fighting a war over THERE than to just wait HERE for another terrorist attack.

Our soldiers are trained to fight, and that's what they are doing. They, and their families, understand that they put their lives on the line defending us. We're all proud of them for doing this.

When I think about our soldiers, my biggest regret is that we are putting their lives in great danger because we are fighting this war 'carefully'. We are not fighting this war in the all-out way we fought WWII. We are fighting this war with the proverbial 'one hand tied behind the back'.

If the US has another terrorist attack, I don't think we'll be so 'careful' in how we fight back.

One obvious answer would be if the number of civilians killed were less than the number that would have died in Iraq under Saddam, then the war might have been worth fighting.

But that has nothing to do with terrorism, does it?

Michael and Thanasi, when you say "civilians [were] killed," who killed them? For people so concerned about being proactive against the war you sure do use the passive voice a lot.

So come on, let's hear it: who killed more civilians, us, or the Baathist thugs and their foreign terrorist allies insurgents?

Andrea, you seem to be denying the existence of Shia and Kurd militias?

Michael, you seem to be avoiding the question?

Let me translate Michael's reply: "Well, I'd answer your question but-- ooh look! Shiny!"

Andrea Harris asks: who killed more civilians, us, or the Baathist thugs and their foreign terrorist allies insurgents?

Thanasi answers: us

These are total deaths, not combat (i.e. KIA) deaths. They include accidents, suicides and heart attacks. Actual combat deaths are somewhat lower, but of course the media wants to report the higher number.

And Thanasi's basis for claiming that the allies have killed more civilians than the bad guys is . . . .?

Perhaps Thanasi could also enlighten us on his views of who is responsible for the deaths of human shields - those who violate law and morality by using them, or those who kill the human shields in self defense?

"Thanasi answers: us"

The Real JeffS responds: That's true only if you are excusing the terrorists for their acts, and ignoring the deaths they have caused.

Rephrased: You are an apologist for terrorism.

And of course, NONE of the "civilians" we killed were terrorists or irregulars that had their guns taken by others before we secured the area...

I wonder how they attribute civilians behind which the terrorists hide? Do we get the "credit" because it was our bullets, or do the terrorists who used them as shields?

In his civilian casualty count, is Thanasi including all of those Iraqis gunned down and blown to smithereens by their "very own" (Iranian, Syrian, Yemeni, Jordanian, Pakistani and Palestinian) jihadist Minutemen? Those Muslim deaths don't count against the Coalition. They should be attributed to Allah's divine justice and infinite mercy as carried out by his merry murderous minions on earth.

Btw, Kofi has already solved the calculus of what a life of a UN blue helmet is worth. The answer is not even 500,000 dead black Sudanese.

A little perspective.

8000 casulties from almost a year in action for 250,000 troops. Compare to D-Day. One day in action, 150,000 troops. 9500 casulties (from D-Day ). I've also seen that the 8:1 wounded to killed casualty ratio in the current conflict is by far better than any other previous US military undertaking.

perhaps kerry should have consulted a brotherly "left winger" for the answer to "how many civilian deaths are acceptable in a war?"
How about Josef Stalin ?

I'm surprised that the anti-war people haven't tried to add in combat deaths of Iraqi police and the like to the military toll. Maybe they've forgotten to count them as human because they're too busy treating terrorists as human.

Assume that coalition forces have only killed 10,000 civilians since the beginning of the war. Assume that terrorist groups and militias have caused far more civilian casualties. Add in coalition casualties and the uncounted number of casualties in the Iraqi army during the war and militia groups afterwards.

This is a heavy cost for the capture of Saddam and the deaths of Uday and Qusay.

The idea of "taking the fight to the terrorists" is ridiculous; who was trembling in fear of Sadr's militia or Baathist thugs before the invasion? One might as well invade Russia to take the fight to the Chechens.

Assume that coalition forces have only killed 10,000 civilians since the beginning of the war. Assume that terrorist groups and militias have caused far more civilian casualties. Add in coalition casualties and the uncounted number of casualties in the Iraqi army during the war and militia groups afterwards.

This is a heavy cost for the capture of Saddam and the deaths of Uday and Qusay.

Yeah, because capturing/killing those three folks was obviously the only objective anyone sought to achieve. Why, oh why did all these innocent people have to die in the course of hunting for a mere three guys.

Wait, what's that I hear about simultaneously ending an oppressive and mass-murdering regime that killed tens of thousands of people each year and would have done so for decades to come if not for the U.S. intervention, putting any casualty figures from the occupation to shame...

Always the same with you leftists...ready to count every single casualty that might in some way be associated with U.S. actions, but conveniently overlooking all the people who are still alive and continue to be because of those very same actions.

At least I'm glad to see you haven't changed your talking points much since the last time Andrea had to ban you for obnoxious behaviour and general childishness. Sure makes it a breeze to respond to you.

PW, you agree that saving lives is a justification for the war, and you also agree that it has nothing to do with "fighting terrorism"?

I chose to respond to the part of your post that could actually be argued against, as you ever-so-conveniently ignored key facts. The paragraph I didn't quote, well, here we go with that:

The idea of "taking the fight to the terrorists" is ridiculous; who was trembling in fear of Sadr's militia or Baathist thugs before the invasion? One might as well invade Russia to take the fight to the Chechens.

That's your opinion, and knowing you from your previous appearances, anything I write in response would be a total waste of my time and Andrea's bandwidth. So why bother?

BTW, don't flatter yourself with illusions of actual importance. People actively refraining from responding to your above opinion does not constitute approval of said opinion. It might merely mean that people got tired of listening to you on those points long ago. Unless I missed the memo that stated that anything you write here must be explicitly disavowed by everybody else, lest one is thought to be in agreement with you?

I am a stupid troll who posted an obscene and pointless comment. I am very sorry and promise never to do it again, because I know that for every troll comment I leave somewhere my penis shrinks half an inch.