in response to: Civilian Deaths in Iraq: Bad Methodology on Parade

Since you imply that the invading force has a right to kill any military opposition, you must simultaneously believe that those who chose to militarily resistance to the occupation have the right to do so. Hence there is no “loss” in slaughtering the military opposition as they have chosen the suicidal course of action to resist the invading group which has clear military superiority.

That element of war is clear, it appears that you are primarily expressing concern with the “misrepresentation” of civilian deaths caused at the hand of “terrorist/insurgents” vs the “US or the UK”.

I am not sure if invading forces are completely absolved of responsibility when violence ensures between the resisters and those that are put into power by the invading force. The death of civilians that die in the “crossfire” of that conflict cannot be solely be attributed to either side of the conflict. The rational choice argument caries a great deal of weight given the power dynamics of the situation. The resistance is going to chose gross violations of human rights when faced with the impossibility of traditional military resistance given the total domination of the invading force.

The invading force can’t really be absolved of all secondary deaths that resulted from the predictable cause and effect of their actions. It was quite predicable that people would not like to be occupied; I think the power elites even acknowledged that much.

The point of counting all the death weather caused by on one side or the other is to relate the number of deaths to the death rate to pre state of invasion levels. Your point is in of itself is a valid observation. The current death rate may be well below what it was when the US and other nations provided to Saddam support through some of his worst atrocities. This was of course followed by Saddam taking some personal initiatives to slaughter a great deal of people and the US government enforcing some pretty heavy duty sanctions causing; mass starvation and biological warfare in the form of targeting civilians through infrastructure destruction. For example destroying water treatment facilities and then taking steps to prevent their reconstruction, causing a huge spike in water toxicity and infant mortality rates. (UN estimates what 5-1.5 million children killed which I assume to be true).

So yea given the gruesome history of things the situation could be worst. But I get the feeling that you offer this as a justification for the invasion and continued occupation. I may be wrong so correct if I am but just because we are killing less people then previous totalitarian regimes in the region, is no justification for all the killings we are participating in.

I know when I see images of football fields of dead bodies in Falluja, I am not concerned about if the dead were suicidal resisters or defenseless civilians just that we just destroyed a city and I can’t understand the morality of doing so. (I understand the strategic elements for doing so but that rational wash away quickly with my tears) When I see dozens of pictures of mutilated children being pulled out of rubble form air raids, I know that the slaughter that was supported by my country is not just. I hope you will listen to Martin Luther King Jr, why I oppose the war in Vietnam speach for a must more eloquently stated rendering of my position in relation to the morality of invading a contry to bring the peace.