Thats where all your posts end up, an exchange of insults, perhaps the problem lies with you.
Iraq's Shocking Human Toll....
- Thread starter dancing-loon
- Start date
Thats where all your posts end up, an exchange of insults, perhaps the problem lies with you.
Civilian Body Count in Iraq Maintains Upward Momentum - The Lede Blog - NYTimes.com
The problem is that the casualty counts are so varied. You have Loony pointing out a source that says 1,000,000. You have the Iraqi Ministry saying 100K to 150K. One count that I found interesting was from a group called "Iraq Body Count". If you see their webpage they are far from a pro-Bush- pro-Iraq War group. They are an anti-war group and they say about 100,000.
The problem is that the casualty counts are so varied. You have Loony pointing out a source that says 1,000,000. You have the Iraqi Ministry saying 100K to 150K. One count that I found interesting was from a group called "Iraq Body Count". If you see their webpage they are far from a pro-Bush- pro-Iraq War group. They are an anti-war group and they say about 100,000.
Is that the lowest number you found?
Is there a source for a lower one?
I suspect the real number is somwhere in between both extremes and hardly something to be proud of.
Go check my posts. It isn't until someone starts flinging them my way that I start. Don't get me wrong, I dish them out with the best of them. I'm not denying that. I'm not going to lay down because someone who disagrees with me decides to take it into the gutter.
I get a lot of flack because
A. I'm an American and this is a Canadian Board
B. I am a centrist that leans more right than left.
I am not a Republican and never will be. I supported Bush but I think he screwed up MANY things and was glad to see him go. I was glad to see the GOP swept from Congress because they deserved it for doing nothing, but I wasn't too happy with who they were replaced by either. I am not a Liberal by any means. I voted for McCain but wasn't too unhappy with Obama being President. I am not the type that says...
"Not my President!"
...like liberals and Democrats do EVERYTIME they lose. Maybe liberals are different up there. Liberals down here are a whinny vicious lot. Many of them are just as wealthy as the stuffed shirt Republicans. They got their money so they feel entitled to squander ours. I live in the bastion of US Liberalism... Massachusetts. Do gooders from Wellsley and Newton that have money to burn and pit the middle class against the poor. That burns me.
Egyptian scholar Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi announced this week that twice as many Iraqis died during the Clinton years as during the Bush years.
In a statement published Al-Yawm Al-Sabi' on November 4th Al-Qaadhawi said he favored John McCain for president:
------------------------------------------
The American presidents are merely pawns, instructed by the members of the Think Tank, PNAC.
Open letter to President Clinton on Iraq
On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.[19]
Rebuilding America's Defenses
Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century (2000), which lists as Project Chairmen Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt and as Principal Author Thomas Donnelly, quotes from the PNAC's June 1997 "Statement of Principles" and proceeds "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces...
In a statement published Al-Yawm Al-Sabi' on November 4th Al-Qaadhawi said he favored John McCain for president:
In a fatwa published on the eve of the U.S. elections, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi expressed his preference for Sen. John McCain as president: "Personally, I would prefer for the Republican candidate, [John] McCain, to be elected. This is because I prefer the obvious enemy who does not hypocritically [conceal] his hostility toward you... to the enemy who wears a mask [of friendliness]."
Al-Qaradhawi added: "Whoever thinks that the Democrats are less hostile to [the Arabs] than the Republicans should know that the number of Iraqis killed during the siege [of Iraq] by the Democrat Bill Clinton is twice as high as the number of [Iraqis] killed by the Republican [George] Bush.
"The Democrats kill you slowly without you noticing it - and therein lies the danger. They are like a snake whose touch is not felt until its poison enters your body.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Then again back in 1996 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that Clinton's policy that may have resulted in 500,000 dead Iraqi children was worth it.
In a much forgotten exchange between Lesley Stahl and Madeleine Albright on "60 Minutes" back on May 12, 1996:
Gateway Pundit: Egyptian Scholar: Twice as Many Iraqis Died During Clinton YearsAl-Qaradhawi added: "Whoever thinks that the Democrats are less hostile to [the Arabs] than the Republicans should know that the number of Iraqis killed during the siege [of Iraq] by the Democrat Bill Clinton is twice as high as the number of [Iraqis] killed by the Republican [George] Bush.
"The Democrats kill you slowly without you noticing it - and therein lies the danger. They are like a snake whose touch is not felt until its poison enters your body.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Then again back in 1996 Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said that Clinton's policy that may have resulted in 500,000 dead Iraqi children was worth it.
In a much forgotten exchange between Lesley Stahl and Madeleine Albright on "60 Minutes" back on May 12, 1996:
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
Unconscious767 posted this video at YouTube (the account was later suspended) and added this:Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
It's worth noting that on 60 Minutes, Albright made no attempt to deny the figure given by Stahl--a rough rendering of the preliminary estimate in a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions.
------------------------------------------
The American presidents are merely pawns, instructed by the members of the Think Tank, PNAC.
Open letter to President Clinton on Iraq
On January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Robert Zoellick drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton, posted on its website, urging President Clinton to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power. The signers argue that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies, and oil resources in the region, if he succeeded in maintaining what they asserted was a stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They also state: "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." They argue that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to U.S. interests.[19]
Rebuilding America's Defenses
Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century (2000), which lists as Project Chairmen Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt and as Principal Author Thomas Donnelly, quotes from the PNAC's June 1997 "Statement of Principles" and proceeds "from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces...
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for the U.S. military:
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In my humble opinion, to achieve and maintain all that each president, con or dem, has to follow suit.
Please read the whole article to get the full understanding.
Also, there is the RAND corporation, but I will leave that for now.
- defend the American homeland;
- fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
- perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions;
- transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs”;
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
Project for the New American Century - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In my humble opinion, to achieve and maintain all that each president, con or dem, has to follow suit.
Please read the whole article to get the full understanding.
Also, there is the RAND corporation, but I will leave that for now.
I didn't search for a low number. I imagine they are out there but you were looking for a real number or as close to real as I could get.
Iraq Body Count seems to me to be at least an anti-war source but their numbers are far to low for people WANTING a higher body count. I said 100,000 but they actually say 90-98K killed in violence.
Iraq Body Count
This bothers me "Damn Near Civil War"
In case everyone has so conveniently forgot, there was a civil war going on when the US got there.
That is the proper term when the northern 3rd has its own armed militia engaged in armed struggle with the central government, and exists outside of said central governments control.
Thats a civil war. The Iraqi civil war had been raging for what, well over a decade, when the American invasion occurred. And the the northern factions literally did great them with open arms and fight alongside them. While this was entirely for their own ends,
lets not pretend the civil war occurred AFTER the invasion, it was already in full swing.
Saddam did enough in 30 years, gassing the Kurds, invading Kuwait, not to mention killing an average of 30,000 on his own people every year to deserve everything he got. W.M.D.s weren't found but that doesn't prove he didn't have them as he did before, which proves along with the killings that the bastard was capable of anything including subjecting the rest of the world to germ warfare. Bush's tactics may have not be quite correct but basically he did the right thing, just had to do it alone because the U.N. has not balls.
Saddam gased the Kurds? There is evidence the Irainians did it, not saying it'd true but nobody has disproved it either but they did disprove the babay incubator thing conconted by the Bush regime.
WMD's weren't found because he didn't have any, even Bush admitted it.
Where did he subject the rest of the world to germ warefare? He didn't even use them in the Gulf war.
The UN didn't have the balls to invade for no reason? Good for them and good for Canada for not buying into the BS.
If it was a humanitarian effort where was Bush on Darfur?
If Iraqis wanted to be free from Saddam they should have done it themselves.
He was a threat to no one but his own people.
Not much lower then your count.
Do you buy the lowest count?
Why?
Is bias involved?
I never said I believed the highest body counts but somewhere in between.
Is that something to be proud of....asking again.
I don't buy any count.
Something to be proud of you ask. Am I proud of innocents being killed... no. Are we responsible for every innocent person killed no. Are we responsible for every Iraqi killed... no.
If you don't buy them why present the lowest ones?
Do you pressure your polititians and military for the truth?
If not, why?
In the situation created after the invasion I think the U.S. is responsible because it was created by the U.S.
If not directly then indirectly and this goes for prewar support of Iraq as well.
I presented the whole thing and the link so you could read. I actually said Iraq Body Count said 100K when it was less than that. If I don't buy them should just present the large ones?
The truth of what? The body count? The military doesn't count the bodies these days and I am not looking for an answer.
Each is entitled to his own opinion
Going a few thousand less is hardly a stretch Eagle.
Why aren't you looking for an answer? Don't you care when you said you did?
So if my opinion is in between both extremes what are yours and why?
Are yours based on ideology or fact?
Do you have a point?
It just isn't on my "To Do" list. But why don't you go ask and let me know what they tell you.
I hardly think you have an "in between" opinion here.
Instead of this round-a-bout... ask the question. What do you exactly want to know?
Yes, you make it a few thousand less ( 2000 ) is significant from the the extreme bottom.
I'm not asking for a cop out just your concern the one you claimed prior.
Why?
I think it's simple, do you base your opnion on fact or ideology? Sorry if I was confusing.
"He was a threat to no one but his own people."- AND THE KUWAITESE. What way did Bush have of knowing Saddam didn't have W.M.D.s? I learned in school almost 100 years ago it is impossible to prove a negative.
Here is some better data about civilian casualties.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraqi death researcher censured
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraqi death researcher censured