4/4     Yesterday I noted a pre-invasion UN study that estimated 500k civilian
        injuries and wondered what the current estimate was.  To partially
        answer that question, Iraq claims that 500 civilians have been killed
        in the conflict.  A bit premature to say, but the UN estimate seems
        a bit high.
        \_ The UN estimate included deaths from starvation and disease.
           Plus we haven't reached Bagdhad yet, where the mass of civilian
           casualites can be expected.
           \_ Certainly more injuries and deaths is expected.  Note that I
              qualified my point with "A bit premature to say".  How many
              casualties from Basra?  -OP
        \_ url please.
           \_ http://csua.org/u/c5f (sfgate.com)
        \_ Unlike the movies, being injured does not equate to being killed.
           That said, the current number of casualties is closer to 10K than
           500k. But it's early and the UN assumed chem weapons would be used.
           Still time....
           \_ I am certainly aware of the difference between injury and
              death.  Note that I said "To partially answer that question".
              However, it seemed unlike that the ratio between injury and
              death is even 100 to 1. -OP
              \_ Generally it's between 2:1 and 5:1 depending on the cause.
           \_ How can the UN assume chemical weaponry would be used if the
              UN position is that there is no proof that Iraq possessed
              chemical weapons?  Or did the UN assume the US would use
              chemical weapons?
              \_ The US is the villain here.  We used sarin gas on our own guys
                 in Vietnam (says P. Arnett).  Why wouldn't we gas the Iraqi
                 civilians, too?
        \_ Is it me, or does it seem that a lot of Sodans are rooting for
           more casualties?
           \_ It's not you.  The extreme left wants a million Mogadishus and
              isn't happy that it's gone relative well thus far.  It's like my
              HS english teacher who wanted to see 50,000 US casualties in
              whatever war we were in at the time so we'd come home and stop
              fighting.
              \_ I voted for Ralph Nader, and am a member of the extreme
                 left.  I was opposed to the starting of this war for many
                 many reasons, but now that we are in it, I'm hoping we
                 crush the Iraqi forces as fast as possible, with as few
                 casualties as possible.  Not all people who don't agree
                 with you are just like your highschool english teacher.
                 \_ Ralph isn't the extreme left.  Sorry to tell you but you're
                    a lot more mainstream than you seem to think.
                    \_ Ralph is not mainstream (except maybe in SF). He got
                        what, 3% of the vote???
              \_ Bullshit.  Nobody wants dead soldiers.  We would however,
                 prefer to see Bush cronies held responsible for the
                 soldiers that have died, and the civilians, and the
                 rampant bald-face lying, and the criminally inept
                 diplomacy.  Clinton was strung up on a rack for getting
                 a little nookie.  Bush has ruined the economy,
                 destabilized the entire middle east, and given cushy
                 contracts to his corrupt friends-- but if someone
                 questions his peroxide-white reputation he's labeled an
                 anti-American.
                 \_ I'd normally respond to this point by point but it screams
                    "troll" and I've been trolled enough lately.
                 \_ How come people often ignore the fact that the economy had
                    already started going downhill before Clinton's term ended?
                    \_ everyone knew Gore would lose
              \_ Note that I did not say "more *US* casualties".  In fact,
                 given the rest of the thread, it should be obvious that I
                 was talking about Iraqi (and specifically Iraqi civilian)
                 casualty.  I posted something that implied the civilian
                 casualty situation isn't as dire as predicted, and a couple
                 of posts jumped in within 5 minutes to try to imply that
                 1) I am grossly incompetent (to not even know the difference
                 between injury and death), 2) there are many more casualties
                 (URL please, btw), and 3) more is forthcoming.  Hence my
                 observation that some Sodans seem to want the casualty number
                 to be (much?) greater.  -OP
                 \_ want and convinced it will be are two different things.
                    I want a government that never lies to us, I know full
                    well that wont ever be the case.