Do Americans Actually Care About The Iraqi People?

One thing has bothered me for some time and with all the Rumsfeld / Democrats discussion going on it's even more concerning:

Do Americans actually care about the Iraqis? - the ordinary people who are struggling to find work, feed and clothe their families, and suffering extreme violence?

In the UK the running death toll mentioned in Iraq nearly always has two parts - our dead and wounded and the dead & wounded of Iraq.

From what I can see of US media and US opinions it seems that the US troops' casualties are the prime concern in the US - perhaps just 20% of the time the Iraq toll is mentioned too.

I know the toll in US dead and wounded has been heavy and troop casualties are a hot topic but don't Iraqis count too?

Do Americans care? Yes. Some do. Most do not.

The original purpose of the Iraq invasion and occupation was to enforce UN Resolution 1441 which was solely about the WMD issue. The safety and security of the Iraqi people never entered into it even from the beginning of the conflict.

We only put our lives, on the line, as a sacrifice for their freedom and liberty by;
Getting them free elections...
Getting them water when terrorists contaminated and destroyed their sources...
Returned electicity when terrorists attacked their power supplies...
Gave them medical supplies my the hunfreds of skids, while teaching them how to use and pack said supplies for their use, correctly...
Allowed them to train along side our forces, for their benefit, so they could take back and keep their nation...

Just to name a few things we have done.

So you tell me, do we care.

ADVISOR I could not said it better my self.
(by way nice avatar)

Originally posted by Strangerous
From what I can see of US media and US opinions it seems that the US troops' casualties are the prime concern in the US - perhaps just 20% of the time the Iraq toll is mentioned too.

I know the toll in US dead and wounded has been heavy and troop casualties are a hot topic but don't Iraqis count too?

Realistically why should they care about Iraq? do you as an example? you don't mention that in your post btw.

In regards the numbers of US dead the numbers are NOT heavy as you suggest, compared to any past wars or occupations that I am aware of.

If the war has become unpopular it is for one simple reason: the average American can see no benefit in it for them whatsoever.

I can benefits in it for the London Banking cartel, the globalists, the oil industry, the military industrial complex, Israel and supporters thereof of course.

But the average guy not only has to spill his blood for this but also pay for it and can't see any real payback either today, tomorrow or long down the road.

Originally posted by ADVISOR
We only put our lives, on the line, as a sacrifice for their freedom and liberty by;
Getting them free elections...
Getting them water when terrorists contaminated and destroyed their sources...
Returned electicity when terrorists attacked their power supplies...
Gave them medical supplies my the hunfreds of skids, while teaching them how to use and pack said supplies for their use, correctly...
Allowed them to train along side our forces, for their benefit, so they could take back and keep their nation...

Just to name a few things we have done.

So you tell me, do we care.

Maybe you don't know we've done all that too but at least we acknowledge the suffering of the Iraqi people and count their dead!
That's the point of this thread: we've both paid the blood price but our attitudes to the resulting carnage / our responsibilities seem to be divergent!

To answer your question, NO, in my opinion the average American has little if any regard for the average Iraqi.

This isn't something you can address in a blanket statement. No, it's obvious that not all Americans care about the Iraqi people, nor the people in Darfur, or the millions of Russian orphans, or our own American homeless, and so on. But some do.

The difference is, how many Americans are actually doing something besides complaining about it?

Astygia is correct. You cant expect all of 3M people to agree on anything, but IMO, all right thinking HUMANS care about the Iraqis. Speaking about Americans specifically.... I say we overturned the cart (bad as it was)...we are responsible for righting it.

Whoa,whoa,whoa... Hold on.

Let me bring some levity to this...

The thing that I see you doing is transferring the actions of the American media over to the general public. That's not fair. Do I think that there are some Americans who couldn't care less? Certainly. However, I don't think that is the majority of Americans.

I know I certainly am regretful for the deaths of Iraqi civilians,but what are we to do? Another thing is, one needs to really examine who it is that's causing the hell over there. Is it by and large American forces, or their own people?

[edit on 8-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

Speaker:

The answer to your question could seriously derail the thread, but here goes.

I know I certainly am regretful for the deaths of Iraqi civilians,but what are we to do?

Leave.

Another thing is, one needs to really examine who it is that's causing the hell over there. Is it by and large American forces, or their own people?

Well, would there be any hell if we hadn't invaded them in the first place? Doesn't matter if you think of them as "resistance", "insurgents", or "terrorists". This is a mess that didn't need to be made.

More on topic..

The thing that I see you doing is transferring the actions of the American media over to the general public. That's not fair. Do I think that there are some Americans who couldn't care less? Certainly. However, I don't think that is the majority of Americans.

Unfortunately, I think it is fair, and accurate. Who are the American people, if not the general public?

Further, how many people actually care about the situation, physically or emotionally? How many random Americans do you see being angry (not just "oohh I'm mad but actually ANGRY), or in tears, or emotionally/physically stunted over the events?

In my experience, very very few. Most that grieve do so because they have lost a family member in the war, which has woken them up to how painful and unnecessary death is for the living.

I see far less tears for the nine-year-olds toting AKs and discovering what it feels like to kill before their first kiss, or for the burned/maimed/dismembered/dead native children in that land, or the destroyed homes/schools/nation, or the widows/widowers that did nothing wrong except be in the wrong place at the wrong time...all of the fault of which falls upon the war and its combatants as a whole, not "the terrorists".

[edit on 8-11-2006 by Astygia]

Originally posted by Astygia
S

The thing that I see you doing is transferring the actions of the American media over to the general public. That's not fair. Do I think that there are some Americans who couldn't care less? Certainly. However, I don't think that is the majority of Americans.

Unfortunately, I think it is fair, and accurate. Who are the American people, if not the general public?

Further, how many people actually care about the situation, physically or emotionally? How many random Americans do you see being angry (not just "oohh I'm mad but actually ANGRY), or in tears, or emotionally/physically stunted over the events?



[edit on 8-11-2006 by Astygia]

Whoa,Whoa,whoa, again. Certainly, you don't think that I can allow you to get away with that... Do ya? Here is what you said:

Unfortunately, I think it is fair, and accurate. Who are the American people, if not the general public?

What does that have to do with the media? Surely you don't think the media is an accurate portrayal of the American attitude. Do you? If so, why?

Get away with what?

I said "in my experience"...to hell with what the media says, they've been a lot of help over the past few years, yes?

I've been to a few events...never got on stage and cried for the crowd, but all they want to do is take all the bad things vets tell them and throw it on the administration. The deaths of Iraqi civilians are used only as ammo to further bring the administration down...there is no feeling, no mourning for them, for the most part at least.

Again, "in my experience"....not according to the latest box of Fox.

Man, it was hard to find pics of normal folks, too damn much political shyte, both sides.

Here's what we're talking about though:










Is this propaganda? Sure it is. But we're talking about people here, not statistics. I just wanted to put faces to the numbers. Think about it guys.

Originally posted by Astygia
The deaths of Iraqi civilians are used only as ammo to further bring the administration down...there is no feeling, no mourning for them, for the most part at least.

Again, "in my experience"....not according to the latest box of Fox.

I can only agree with that.

A few statuistics from our own board taken minuttes before posting.

Gunman Kills Colorado Schoolgirl, Then Himself ATSNN.com comm: 0 views: 56 28-9-2006 @ 20:45

Another Day in Baghdad: TV Station Raided 11 Media Workers Killed ATSNN.com comm: 0 views: 49 14-10-2006 @ 08:29

Democrats Sweep GOP out of House of Representatives 1 2 3 ..4 ATSNN.com comm: 60 views: 1935 9-11-2006 @ 09:35

The last thread was started only about 13 hours ago.

Your question needed to be asked even though it verges on the point of stupidity. For starters they’ve just had the elections and Iraq was a very prominent issue.

Fact is Americans are way more Christian than most of Europe and though this is often seen to be a bad thing because of stupid issues like stem cell research; it is actually good when it means a believer thinks they are accountable to the afterlife and to god.

America lost 50,000 in Vietnam so I'm sure they can cope with 3000 if it’s for a worthwhile cause. If on the other hand Americans are killing and being killed only to make the situation worse; or to merely succeed in seeing our enemies becoming democratically elected then that annoys people.

Every civilised nation has empathy with they’re fellow human beings; pro war or anti war there are few people who would want what’s happened to Iraqis to happen to us, just as there are few people who would want to impose it with little (righteous or materialistic) to show for it. If Americans are unrighteous and materialistic then why don’t they nuke Iran tomorrow? Execute surplus immigrants? Or even expand on places like Guantanamo Bay?

Why Britain’s Are on the Surface Much Better but Politically Much, Much Worse
The American government on the other hand is capable of infinite evil; but I think the same is even more true for our one in Britain. Our MP’s won’t even debate whether to investigate the war in Iraq (government one the vote by 25 although it would have been more if they all voted as many MP’s were absent).
They say it was because “it would send out the wrong message to the insurgents” (Blair). But do you really buy that; that the British MP’s genuinely believe the insurgents are paying attention to British parliament? That it really makes a big difference to them whether Conservative, or Labour or Liberal Democrats move up or down in the polls? I think if anything they might be a bit less hatful of us if they were to hear we had the courage to face to our mistakes.

And I think most Britain’s (a largely atheistic nation) seem more distracted by humanitarian events in Africa than say Iraq; after all we re-elected Blair’s government; and in his own constituency he gained an even bigger majority than before. It is certainly true that we’ll put issues like “what the Tories might or might not do to the national Health service”; ahead of say the execution of doctors and nurses in Iraq by their dead patients relatives. We as a people seem far less geo-politically concerned than the Americans; and given that our teenagers are officially (according to an EU report) the worst in Europe (in just about every indicator possible: be it crime or teenage pregnancy or lack of time spent at home) we are barely civilised in comparison to America (which despite the odd few states) is (overall) pretty alright in comparison.
Of course (like America) the majority of Britain’s care about Iraqis, overall we are less nationalistic in a coherent fashion, we are more anti war (statistics prove it), we seem more knowledgeable about Iraq.

But politically our government is capable of more evil because we are easier to distract, and because every leader of the two major political parties supported the war in Iraq. Because we’ve grown used to that kind of "choice"; and so have allowed issues like e.g. crime to distract us. It’s a rational position when they’re isn’t much to choose between them. However its dangerous unless (like me) you refuse to help the party that’s in government till things change.

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

Originally posted by Liberal1984

And I think most Britain’s (a largely atheistic nation) seem more distracted by humanitarian events in Africa than say Iraq; after all we re-elected Blair’s government; and in his own constituency he gained an even bigger majority than before.
[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

Facinating! We "Yanks" are your 5th, 6th,......10th generation nieces and nephews. We are still "religious" by comparison. How did this transformation from "Christianity to Athieism" occur? No beligerence or antagonism intended, just honest curiosity.

[edit on 11/8/2006 by darkbluesky]

The media can't post the Iraqi death count. Most are killed by other Iraqi's. How can they blame everything on us if we know the Iraqi's are actually killing each other. How can they continue to say it is our fault when day after day Iraqi's butcher each other in the name of their religion. It would make the Insurgents look like bad people and the NYT and their friends can't have that. Other countries might stop selling them weapons and then where would we be. Didn't the end of the Oil for Food money hurt them bad enough. They need somebody to sell their WMD's too. Don't they?

Please take this tongue in cheek, but it's not far from a correct answer. Your media must be more honest than ours.

InDirectViolation Your of topic but I’ll give you a quick answer…
Because if the sanctions had been lifted, and if the country hadn’t been invaded then its almost certain Iraq would have caught up with where it left of pre-1991. It used to have one of the best Healthcare systems in the Middle East (it was free, sophisticated, and at least 93% of the population had access), because Iraqis (financially) were close to Western style living standards, because the country had 92% literacy.
Because when we first invaded Iraq there were virtually no suicide bombings at first, and its taken 3 years of us being there to get this bad.
Under Saddam your average Iraqi was freer in the daily lives than they are now. What I mean is that they could take a walk (at night) to other side of Baghdad (every day of year if they liked) without getting shot at.

In theory Iraqis are politically freer (you know in that big deal called elections that come about every few years) but unlike in America, if someone looked at my ballot (which was voting for the wrong candidate) I wouldn’t have to worry about being executed as well as loosing my vote.
People are killed daily in Iraq for speaking their minds; and many of them in the most disgusting ways.

Of course your right that Iraqis are fighting each other; but it’s we that liberated them.
We did it against international advice, warnings, including of those from history. You would have to be a thick Iraqi to exchange your vote for what you’ve now got. Especially when in the next elections it looks as though all that poverty, and fear has caused enough hardship, for Iraqis to be poised to elect an anti Western government.

Most Iraqis didn’t like Saddam (unless they’re Sunni and he was one of them) but they’ll tell you they were better of under him (excluding Kurds who now have vertural independance). And as a Westerner it’s easy to see why everyone acccept the Kurds is worse of: Saddam killed the extremists as well as those who opposed him; but the vast majority who opposed him were actually extremists. We "interfered" with that country (putting it lightly) so it's our moral duty to find a government that works (and the last one is currently on trial).

[edit on 090705 by Liberal1984]

I think that the outcome of the elections answer that question quite succinctly.