about defining "coalition losses"

i think it's ridiculous that cheney tried to score points by accusing kerry/edwards of having no respect for the iraqis who have died during this war, by saying that edwards refuses to "count" iraqis as coalition partners and in so doing, saying edwards was got his numbers wrong.

for me the issue is this: how are the people we invaded our "allies"? did they join the "coalition of the willing" at some point? was that before or after we declared "mission accomplished?" are we supposed to count the Iraqi Republican Guard deaths when we killed them on purpose, during the "shock and awe" part of the war? Or do we only count Iraqi military deaths as coalition casualties--when we killed them by accident or when they were killed by insurgents on purpose--after we took over? and how come no one at the white house, for months, has talked about the coalition casualities as including iraqis? perhaps because they really don't like to talk about casualties at all?

i mean, i understand that many innocent iraqis have died as a result of the horrible chaos brought about by the power-vacuum that our invasion created, and in which the insurgency has gained strength. and i understand that many iraqis truly wish to defend their homeland and hope to end the occupation soon.

but to characterize iraqi deaths--primarily that of civilians and police, not military--resulting from the insurgency as "coalition losses" is stretching it just a little too far for my taste. should we also count all the civilian casualties that resulted from our initial bombing campaigns? are those "coalition casualties?" what about the 35 kids who rushed forward to receive candy from US soldiers the other day? are they "coalition casualties?"

nonetheless, edwards's point stands: the majority of money and bodies used to fight this war have come from the u.s. in the 1991 war, 88% of war costs were paid by the coalition, which included arab countries, and major european partners. we all know this to be true.

and...poland is thinking of withdrawing in 2005. i guess they are not so willing, anymore.

anyway, my point originally was that most discussion of "coalition casualties" is typically defined as the coalition that attacked/invaded/liberated (whatever you want to call it) Iraq, and does not include Iraqis, whether military or civilian. See, for example, CNN: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/
"There have been 1,205 coalition deaths, 1,066 Americans, 68 Britons, six Bulgarians, one Dane, two Dutch, one Estonian, one Hungarian, 19 Italians, one Latvian, 13 Poles, one Salvadoran, three Slovaks, 11 Spaniards, two Thai and nine Ukrainians, in the war in Iraq as of October 5, 2004."

check out www.iraqbodycount.net for the latest updates on the civilian numbers.

And, because I can't seem to stop ranting, I guess the following galls me worse than anything said/distorted by Dick Cheney last night: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9753603.htm
"BAGHDAD, Iraq - Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis - most of them civilians - as attacks by insurgents, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Health Ministry and obtained exclusively by Knight Ridder."

but, hey, let's keep rolling...right? You really sure you wouldn't do anything different, Cheney?