Death sentence for Iraqi women and children ..............

Lingering side issue in my mind: it has been widely stated, here and elsewhere, that the Iraqi population is predominantly those under the age of 15, or so. Can this be true? Why? Are the Iragis propagating like bunnies, in an impoverished culture and economy? Or, what is happening to the parents?

Why should decision to start war against Iraqi dictator is considered being tantamount to death sentence to Iraqi civilians? IMO, U.S. Army is professional enough to minimize collateral damage.

And to those that would fall outside the parameters of the acceptable 'mother father sister brother' constituency of the 'collaterally' dead you would say ....?
To be really 'fair' shouldn't we fly in a cross section of totally innocent people from around the globe so that they too can 'die in the wrong place, at the wrong time'?
War starts in the heart of one and spreads from there to the hearts of the easily convinced.
What atrocity have you witnessed that justifies the slaughter of innocents.
Beyond that, what qualities of mercy have you witnessed from Mr. Bush that would lead you to believe that he is a 'compassionate' conservative?

War is about one thing .... killing.

Would you prefer we use Saddam's tactics and pay individuals to intentionally target innocent civilians and blow them up one by one? THAT would be really "fair" wouldn't it? There is no need to fly people around to acheive that.. He's been at it already for some time now.

Yes, some innocent people may very well be killed if the US invades Iraq and that is a horrible tragedy. The difference however, is that they won't be the intended targets. Can you same the same of Saddam's tactics?

War starts in the heart of one and spreads from there to the hearts of the easily convinced.
What atrocity have you witnessed that justifies the slaughter of innocent people,


3000 bombs were dropped on Afghanistan in 48 hours ...... innocents died .......... USAMA BIN LADEN still walks the earth.

Gelisgesti
I am not convinced that a preemptive attack is justified. However, since it seems to be inevitable I agree it should be done as quickly and with all the power in our possession. In the long run it will save lives on both sides. Fighting a war with one arm tied behind your back is shear stupidity.

Why do you think they will not tell s how much the war will cost?
All that oil will end the deficit ..... if we control it. Look at the men in his cabinet ....... oil oil oil oil and more oil. Who thinks Saddam, as surrounded as he is, will attack anyone?


Think back a few years, Manuel Noriega inside a church in Panama, with stealth bombers circling overhead ... what is it about Bush men and war? Why such blood lust ...............

There is the only person that can prevent war, and his name is Saddam Hussein. All he needs is to surrender unconditionally. Then there will be no war, and Iraqi women and children will remain intact. Saddam, by the way, meanwhile is a president of Iraq, so it is his direct duty to take care of his subjects' lives.

In my reading of American history it was the United States that first used the idea of involving the killing of civilians a way to defeat and demoralize the enemy in the US Civil War. Sherman's march to the sea and the burning of Atlanta seems to me a policy of waging war on civilians in order to undermine the will of the enemy.

Just curious and not trying to inject religion into this but.....

How would a person explain 'collateral" death to God, assuming a belief in God?

Joane,

Though the American Civil War was perhaps the first "modern" war largely because of the weapons technology available, the Total War was born in the Napoleonic Wars. The whole of the population was regarded as a resource from which soldiers and military necessities should be drawn. However, the real consequences of Total War only were demonstrated during the mid-years of the 20th century.

Gelisgesti,

In re. costs of war. Costs are impossible to calculate before the fighting is completed, and even then such calculations are difficult and tentative. Costs are not all direct, nor are they reducible to money costs. What is the cost of favoring one priority over another? Is money spent to prevent a disease greater than merely treating it later? These are not easy questions to answer, and the results are at best confusing.

Let's say that we could compute the cost of a war ... 10 billion dollars, let us say. That's a lot of money, but the cost has to be weighed against the probable outcome if the war is not fought. We might have save billions by not sending troops to Europe during WWII, but that might well have meant a Nazi Victory. Would a German victory in WWII have cost far more than what we actually spent in treasure and lives to defeat them? On balance, I'd say we got a bargain in WWII.

In re. homicide. All human deaths at the hands of another human being is homicide, but that doesn't mean all homicides are equal. The hitman who blows up an airliner filled with passengers to kill one person is one extreme. The person who neglects maintaining their vehicle in a safe condition is still responsible for the accidental death of a bystander when the unsafe vehicle goes out of control. One is purposeful and wantonly intended to kill innocent people. The other is an accident that resulted from a person's negligence. In war, accidents are common, but American Military personnel do everything possible to reduce the consequence of those accidents. Do you see the difference?

Suma,

In re. Why is the Iraqi demographics tilted toward the younger cohorts. Saddam Hussein sacrificed many thousands in his war against Iran. He followed that up with the loss of more thousands when he invaded Kuwait. Saddam sits on top of the wealth of Iraq, while the population as a whole are deprived of those things that tend to extend life-expectancy. I believe that birth control/abortion are virtually unknown inside Iraqi society these days. These elements, I suppose, would explain the bulge in the 10-20 year old cohort.

Iraq's population is not predominantly under 15.

0-14 years: 41.1% (male 5,003,755; female 4,849,238)
15-64 years: 55.9% (male 6,794,265; female 6,624,662)
65 years and over: 3% (male 341,520; female 388,376) (2002 est.)

But the under 15 segment is high compared to the world averages:

0-14 years: 29.2% (male 932,581,592; female 885,688,851)
15-64 years: 63.7% (male 2,009,997,089; female 1,964,938,201)
65 years and over: 7.1% (male 193,549,180; female 247,067,032) (2002 est.)

I believe the answer is in intent ... a body of people do not spontaneously take up arms to force thier will on another body of people with no idea of the intended oucome as this would be an 'unjust war'. If one tribe denies access to the only available source of water then the denied tribe is justified in waging a war to accomplish thier survival ....intent

When a person is drivinng a car the object is getting from point a to point b, not killing, accident.
When you drop 3000 bombs in 48 hours your intent is to kill, with neither knowing or caring who is killed, guilty or innocent, intentional..


What is the desired outcome in this war, I have heard several, none just.