11-08-2005, 02:36 AM
Chaerophon,Nov 4 2005, 08:26 PM Wrote:If the number was that high, I like to think that it would change public sentiment. Bloodless war is a very popular fiction.
[right][snapback]94062[/snapback][/right]
When we were originally discussing the possibility of the war someone (Pete I think?) said that if the government knowingly misled the US public then there would be hell to pay. Hell seems pretty gentle these days. ;)
Even if the magic number this bloke came up with was 2 Million, or 10% of the Iraqi population, then the U.S. might start wishing they never joined in, but like Occhi said, what are the options from here, you can't change the past. "Oops, we probably shouldn't have gone into Iraq, sorry about the 2 million dead, we'll just be leaving now" ain't something likely to come out of the mouth of an American president, even less by the govt. that initiated the whole deal. And what can the public do, even if they wanted out? there isn't an election for another 3(?) years...
I don't agree with the U.S. rationale for going to war, But I am happy that Saddam was dethroned. With the high stakes in such an event, there will be bias from all sides, and once again I ask, what would knowing the exact number of civilian casualties actually achieve, even if it could be counted by a mutually agreeable definition?