Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 48): Of course you dont hear much about the good things that have been done in the media we read. When it comes down to it, the media is the only thing most people have to go on. And we know it doesnt always report the facts. I suppose that's Bush's fault to probably

That's why I fear the media perhaps more then the
governments that they accuse of censorship and witch hunts.
Not once during the election,did the media volunteer information to us,
about what the Clinton Presidency did.(Bombings and Democratic endorsement concerns of the WMD'S) .That's censorship to deny us info.

Your right.Bush let Kerry of the hook.During the debates,Bush confronted
Kerry saying,"You had the same information as I did." Too bad.

Quoting Psa53 (Reply 45): How many civilian were killed there?

Too many. And nothing was done. Why wasn't anything done when Saddam WAS committing acts of genocide? Why only recently, when things had calmed down?

Also, yes it may be a good thing that Saddam is out, but the way we went about this war totally sucked. I am no military expert, but please.... "Shock and Awe"? Are you kidding me? More like blow the sh*t out of innocent civilians while hitting a few military targets in between.


-Tim  

Quoting Northwest717 (Reply 51): Too many. And nothing was done. Why wasn't anything done when Saddam WAS committing acts of genocide? Why only recently, when things had calmed down?

Nothing was done when Saddam was commiting those acts of genocide because good ole' Slick Willy Clinton was in office. Probably for the same reason he, Clinton, didnt take advantage of (I beleive it was Sudan's offer back in 1998) to extradite Osama Bin Laden to U.S. Custody when they offered him to us.

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 52): because good ole' Slick Willy Clinton was in office.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/Khaledtext.html

"he Kurdish genocide of 1987-1989"


Check again toots.

-Tim  

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 52): to extradite Osama Bin Laden to U.S. Custody

OK, that WAS a huge mistake. I will admit that. But it is still irrelivant to the 2003-? Iraqi War.

-Tim  

Quoting Northwest717 (Reply 51): Also, yes it may be a good thing that Saddam is out, but the way we went about this war totally sucked. I am no military expert, but please.... "Shock and Awe"? Are you kidding me? More like blow the sh*t out of innocent civilians while hitting a few military targets in between.

Blow the hell out of Innocent civilians huh? Collateral damage is a tragedy of war that the U.S. takes great steps to limit. That's one reason why we use satellite and laser guided weapons, so we can try to pinpoint with as much accuracy as possible on the target without taking out innocents. And its not like the Iraqi people didn't have adequate warning to evacuate out of the way of a warzone in Bahgdad that night before it happened. Maybe you could say we blew the crap out of them if we had carpet bombed the city like we did the jungles of Vietnam, or we had fire bombed them such as happened in Dresden in WW2. If I recall correctly Baghdad has something like 5 million residents. I highly doubt even 1% of them were killed in the initial shock and awe campaign.

"[quote=Northwest717,reply=53]"he Kurdish genocide of 1987-1989"


Check again toots.

-Tim [Sad]

Not really. There was mass killings of the Kurds and the Shittes during the early 1990's as well when they tried to uprise against the regime.

[Edited 2005-07-20 07:18:25]

[quote=Northwest717,reply=54]OK, that WAS a huge mistake. I will admit that. But it is still irrelevant to the 2003-? Iraqi War.

-Tim [Sad]

It's not, but it was relevant when showing how the prior administration was weak on cracking down on Islamic fundamentalism.

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 57): It's not, but it was relevant when showing how the prior administration was weak on cracking down on Islamic fundamentalism.

Yes, it is partially irrelivant. Look at the topic. I don't see what the previous administration not taking Osama from Saddam has to do with our murder of 25,000 civilians.

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 56): There was mass killings of the Kurds and the Shittes during the early 1990's

But the blatant acts of genocide, the ones that he is imfamous for, occured in the late '80s.

-Tim  

Quoting Northwest717 (Reply 58): . . . has to do with our murder of 25,000 civilians.

Murder is a word with specific meaning. It is actionable in court. Your use of the word is utterly incorrect.

The "25000" include enemy combatants who lack the moral integrity to wear a uniform. They were shooting at our troops and were killed. It is a natural consequence of shooting at an armed soldier and missing. Upon their death they become "civilians" because they were not wearing a uniform. Suicide bombers are, themselves, counted among the "civilian" casualties and you blame the US. This is a blatant lie and the compilers of these statistics are bigger liars than the Pentagon.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 59): Murder is a word with specific meaning.

I'm aware of that.

MURDER = The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Well, this war was practically illegal (and was even deemed illegal by the UN) so there is your "unlawful".

Don't even begin to tell me that W. even gave a rip about the people. He had plenty of malice to go around. He had tunnel vision and wanted to get back at "the people" that thwarted his father. There is your "malice".

Anything else to say?

-Tim  

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 49): We had thirteen of them. Saddam ignored 13 UN resolutions over 13 years. Legally, he could have been invaded after the first one of those. Simple as that!

Please, Mr. Whoeveryouare. I'm not supremely stupid and dumb. You don't invade a nation unless they threaten you, offer threats to you, or actually invade or attack you.

And, apparently one thing is clear now: HE DIDN'T IGNORE THE RESOLUTIONS!! WHERE ARE THE FUCKING WEAPONS?? Amazing, how the head-bobbers on the right, like yourself, were all over the WMD angle BEFORE the war, when Bush, Cheney and his crew were pushing that 24/7, without pause. You believed, without question, the "intelligence" Colin Powell presented at the UN-and, oh, THAT was all about WMD, not freeing Iraq, not establishing democracy, not at fighting terrorism. It was WMD.

Now, TWO YEARS LATER, when it's obvious the given reason for the war was false, you guys continue your case of selective amnesia, and swear the war was never about WMD! Well it was. Bush said we were directly threatened by his weapons, and that was why we were invading. Well, the weapons aren't there, and with it, any justification for our invasion.

But keep bobbing your head.

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 52): Nothing was done when Saddam was commiting those acts of genocide because good ole' Slick Willy Clinton was in office.

Gee, the big Massacre that Saddam did, using WMD-HAPPENED DURING REAGAN'S TERM, NOT CLINTONS!

Keep bobbing your head.....

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 55): I highly doubt even 1% of them were killed in the initial shock and awe campaign.

ROTFL. You even use that corny term!

Keep bobbing your head...

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 56): Not really. There was mass killings of the Kurds and the Shittes during the early 1990's as well when they tried to uprise against the regime.

Yes, really. The great massacre, of an entire town, with gas, happened during The Great Communicator's watch, not a Democrats. Why didn't he do anything about it, chum? Why? He's the Hero Of The Right, and using your logic, he should have invaded them then and there, but he didn't? Why? Why?

Nice to see I have someone knew to pick apart their delusions, especially while SFOMEX is gone.

Quoting Northwest717 (Reply 60): practically illegal

So then you are saying that it was legal, right?

Quoting Northwest717 (Reply 60): was even deemed illegal by the UN

Now there's an authority for you. So is rape, so is skimming and pocketing aid money. Where is the UN stance on those?

Quoting Northwest717 (Reply 60): Don't even begin to tell me that W. even gave a rip about the people. He had plenty of malice to go around. He had tunnel vision and wanted to get back at "the people" that thwarted his father.

I don't think any President or any legislator I've ever seen cared at all about "the people" It is a hazard that is inseperable from our political system. To even want to hold elected office a person has to place their personal ambitions above every other possible consideration, even above the welfare of their nation or of the human race. It is the nature of the beast and this President is no worse, or no better than any other. Don't like it? Don't elect any more career politicians.

On the other hand, it is similarly aggogant to assume that you can discern another person's (GWB) motivation by reading newspaper headlines.

Quoting Northwest717 (Reply 60): Anything else to say?

Yes.

Your use of the word is still hyperbole.

And the main thrust of all my previous posts was on another topic anyway, one closer to the subject of this thread. That is, that these statistics are highly suspect because of the admitted bias of the people who gathered them. The critical thinking I'd expect of a bright twelve-year-old would tell you that.

In short, the numbers have been "cooked" by their prejudices.

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 4): Any Iraqi will tell you they were happier before the invasion with Saddam in power.

You're pulling crap out of your ass as usual. Polls in Iraq show other wise. Of course most Iraqi's don't want a foreign body in their country, but most are indeed glad that Saddam is no longer in power.

Polls are showing that for one reason, Daedaeg-because there's an occupying force in their country, and they really don't want to piss us off.

Remember when we had the Shah as our puppet in Iran, and the Iranians professed how much they loved America. He was overthrown, and we saw their real feelings.

When we leave, there'll be no love for us in Iraq, even if we did out Saddam. They'll hate us with a vengence.

NWA,

From your link:

"Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades,"

Now in 20 years, that's at about a rate of 14,500 civilian deaths per year. That compares to the number of civilians we've killed in our war for "liberation"... or wait was the the war on "terror"... I seem to recall something about WMD's...

Makes you think really.

Quoting N229NW (Reply 22): Question 1: Would Saddam have killed more people or fewer than the US occupation.

Look at my above post. If there have been 25,000 dead in the occupation (and I believe this is an underestimation), that's about 12,500 a year. That is about the same as under Sadaam. Just last Sunday, 96 people died in a truck bombing south of baghdad. And anyways, two wrongs don't make a right. We should not be asking this sort of question. This is far too many civilians killed in our occupation in the first place.

Quoting N229NW (Reply 22): Querstion 2: Are Iraqi's "better off" now or before?

It is my personal opinion that Iraqi's are not "better off" than they were before. Read above. I could go into a lot more detail on this, but I'll refrain from doing so in this post.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 25): The tone of your thread and your posts seems to lay all twenty five thousand deaths on the front porch of the Whitehouse. Do you think that is fair?

Yes, because the Whitehouse started this war. The instability that is gripping this country is a result of the White House's push for war to destroy the WMD's in Iraq. So yes, I think its perfectly fair to lay these deaths at the "front porch" of this administration.

Quoting Northwest717 (Reply 51): Too many. And nothing was done. Why wasn't anything done when Saddam WAS committing acts of genocide? Why only recently, when things had calmed down?

Who knows. This is one of the mysteries of the Western world, why don't we help people who need it? Why do we watch genocide occur in Darfur and do nothing about it? Why did we watch Sadaam kill thousands in the last two decades and do nothing about it until now?

(oh yea I forgot, it's all Clinton's fault)

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 59): Suicide bombers are, themselves, counted among the "civilian" casualties and you blame the US. This is a blatant lie and the compilers of these statistics are bigger liars than the Pentagon.

You have said this repeatedly in this thread. Do you have any sort of proof for it? Any sort of link to back up this statement? Both the U.N. and the post in the original thread claim that these are civilians. There is a big difference between civilians and those killed by marines in combat (I'm talking about insurgents who fire on marines), suicide bombers, and other terrorists.

Quoting Daedaeg (Reply 63): Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 4): Any Iraqi will tell you they were happier before the invasion with Saddam in power. You're pulling crap out of your ass as usual. Polls in Iraq show other wise.

Daedag: As per my point above, different polls show different things. There are no proper controls on these polls. Also, it is very easy to distort vague responses to polls to mean what you want them to. e.g. if most Iraqis say they are happy Saddam is gone but were more secure before the invasion these are not necessarily contradictory.

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 66): It is my personal opinion that Iraqi's are not "better off" than they were before. Read above. I could go into a lot more detail on this, but I'll refrain from doing so in this post.

Tbar: As you can see from my first post, I agree with you completely (on both your responses). I guess my point about these "questions" was that it is very hard to get reliable answers, which means that strongly as I feel, I get uncomfortable with the idea of absolute certainty some people express about many of these figures or how to interpret them...

Now, that doesn't mean I think we shouldn't try to frame our arguments strongly about the war, just that the arguments must be more nuanced than they often are (on this forum and elsewhere...)

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 66): You have said this repeatedly in this thread. Do you have any sort of proof for it?

yes

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 66): There is a big difference between civilians and those killed by marines in combat (I'm talking about insurgents who fire on marines), suicide bombers, and other terrorists.

In their statistics there is no category for such people. Therefore they are included in the 25,000. Else these people are deliberately supressing their numbers. If I am wrong about this let someone in an official capacity at The Iraq Body Count set me straight by explaining how their numbers are culled from the numbers they publish.

In my opinion this body count functions very much like the famous one we were treated to each evening during the Vietnam war (yes I acknowledge some similarities) That one worked like this. Body: dead? yes! Asian? yes okay, he's VC.

Here there are no soldiers on the other side, no one is wearing a uniform. So, is he dead? Yes! Is he wearing a US uniform? No! Okay, he is a "civilian casualty"

I cannot prove that and you cannot disprove it.
Let The Iraq Body Count the "academics, human rights & anti-war activists" explain it.

By the way, I was in Manchester England in November and December 2001, long before we even hinted at invading Iraq. We had not even gone into Afghanistan yet. There were "anti-war" rallies scheduled. The tone was decidedly anti-American. Are these the "anti-war" activists who comprise this group? If so, do they really object to war or is it just the US, or "coalition" prevailing that they don't like?

I think those are fair questions.

PS Don't think I'm a cheerleader for Bush on this one. I wish to hell we'd left Iraq alone. I wish to hell we'd just let the whole middle east implode under its own stupidity but that is another thread.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 62): So then you are saying that it was legal, right?

Uh.......No.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 62): Don't elect any more career politicians.

I didn't vote for him.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 62): hyperbole

Well looky here, SlamClick is trying to psych me out with "big words".  

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 62): because of the admitted bias of the people who gathered them

Can you please show me that admission?


-Tim  

Quoting Dtwclipper (Thread starter): The Iraq Body Count -- a London-based group comprising academics and human rights and anti-war activists --

Academics are famously left-leaning. They can afford to be liberals, they don't actually have to produce anything useful. Hell, Ward Churchill works for a university.

Human rights activists should, by definition have a vested interest in making carnage sound worse.

Any reasonable person would recognize that an anti-war activist has a bias.

Now, is it your statement that their statistics are absolutely factual?

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 68): I cannot prove that and you cannot disprove it.

So you don't have proof for it?

All your talk is exactly what you're accusing that group of doing. You're making unbased claims and haven't presented any sources to back it up. At least do that much.

If you're not going to provide some sort of source for your accusations of how they got their statistics, why are we debating it? If you cannot prove it and I cannot disprove it, then we cannot discuss it and the point can't even be used. Start by finding a source for this.

Its all just hypothesis at this point.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 70): Academics are famously left-leaning. They can afford to be liberals, they don't actually have to produce anything useful.

How about turning that around and noting that academics who specifically study history, war, nationalism, etc. are actually pretty well-placed (maybe best-placed) to come to good conclusions politically than many people who watch the tv news only and yet have strong ideas about politics?

  

Quoting Northwest717 (Reply 69): Well looky here, SlamClick is trying to psych me out with "big words".

Same number of letters, three fewer characters than your username.

Here is a four letter word: fool

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 70): Human rights activists should, by definition have a vested interest in making carnage sound worse.

Only to a very small extent. There are plenty of real human rights violations without anyone needing to make anything up...

Quoting N229NW (Reply 67): Daedag: As per my point above, different polls show different things. There are no proper controls on these polls. Also, it is very easy to distort vague responses to polls to mean what you want them to. e.g. if most Iraqis say they are happy Saddam is gone but were more secure before the invasion these are not necessarily contradictory.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 64): Polls are showing that for one reason, Daedaeg-because there's an occupying force in their country, and they really don't want to piss us off. Remember when we had the Shah as our puppet in Iran, and the Iranians professed how much they loved America. He was overthrown, and we saw their real feelings. When we leave, there'll be no love for us in Iraq, even if we did out Saddam. They'll hate us with a vengence.

Well if this is the case, then one can surmise that there is absolutely no way of knowing what the average Iraqi thinks about coalition forces in Iraq. So the next time I see someone stating that Iraqis (not insurgents) want coalition forces out of Iraq I'll make sure they refer to your posts. I'll now base my judgements on how the Iraqi's reacted during their first election in their lifetime, rather than the polls. Despite the high casualty counts of civilians, Iraqis do want a successful democracy.

Quoting Daedaeg (Reply 75): Iraqis do want a successful democracy.

No, what they and the rest of the middle east want, is for the US to stop getting involved in everyones business that has oil in the ground

Just why was Iraq invaded?

It certainly didn't have WMD and wasn't a threat in the slightest to the Allies.

Terrorism around the world has increased by many orders of magnitude since the war. Indeed, Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism, whereas it simply wasn't before.

Even if the reason was obscurly to 'help the Iraqis' (and considering 3 million people are starving in Niger right now, with little assistance from us, that doesn't see that likely) then given that more Iraqis died in the SECOND YEAR of the war - the year after 'mission accomplished' - then it is apparent that the war as an abject failure.

Just what reason is left to justify the war?

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 73): fool

Dude, look at yourself.

And you are calling me the fool?

-Tim  

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 61): Please, Mr. Whoeveryouare. I'm not supremely stupid and dumb. You don't invade a nation unless they threaten you, offer threats to you, or actually invade or attack you. And, apparently one thing is clear now: HE DIDN'T IGNORE THE RESOLUTIONS!! WHERE ARE THE FUCKING WEAPONS?? Amazing, how the head-bobbers on the right, like yourself, were all over the WMD angle BEFORE the war, when Bush, Cheney and his crew were pushing that 24/7, without pause. You believed, without question, the "intelligence" Colin Powell presented at the UN-and, oh, THAT was all about WMD, not freeing Iraq, not establishing democracy, not at fighting terrorism. It was WMD. Now, TWO YEARS LATER, when it's obvious the given reason for the war was false, you guys continue your case of selective amnesia, and swear the war was never about WMD! Well it was. Bush said we were directly threatened by his weapons, and that was why we were invading. Well, the weapons aren't there, and with it, any justification for our invasion. But keep bobbing your head.

My name is Adam, but I have a friend named Mr. Whoeveryouare I could introduce you too. Unfortunately you wont have much opportunity to pick apart my delusions if that's your objective because I have a life and rarely waste my time posting in here and getting my knickers all in a bunch. Nor do I have time to try to sit here day after day and personally attack anybody I don't agree with. I've just had enough of listening the this kind of absurdity and wanted to throw in my two cents.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 61): You believed, without question, the "intelligence" Colin Powell presented at the UN-and, oh, THAT was all about WMD,

Back the truck up, I'm not talking about the intelligence the Powell presented to the UN. I'm referring to the intelligence that's most Western Governments had throughout the 90's long before Bush was President.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 61): Amazing, how the head-bobbers on the right, like yourself, were all over the WMD angle BEFORE the war, when Bush, Cheney and his crew were pushing that 24/7, without pause.

I guess you really must know me pretty good seeming I was just as agaisnt this war as most of the liberals before it started and I was dumb enough to buy the "war for oil" line. and Im far from a proud American. In fact I despise living in this country, actually laughed when 9/11 happened and said we were asking for it. And I spend 9 months out of the year living in Berlin, Germany where I hold a residency visa. Perhaps one day I'll be able to have my wish granted, and leave the USA for good without returning. Maybe too some people its the best country in the world, but it doesn't work for me, and has been like that long before 9/11, Iraq, or the Bush Administration came into power.
Oh and if you think I'm a right wing head bobber, I haven't been to Church in 15 years, and I'm not down with Jesus, I support abortion, I smoke Herb reguarly, I find capitalism gluttonous, oppose the death penetly, and believe the USA needs to lay off on policing the entire world.
However, the truth is the Bush administration messed up on Iraq, but we're there now and playing the blame game, pointing fingers and accusing Bush of lying isn't going to help us get out of Iraq anytime soon. It wasn't an illegal war, and we need to deal with now instead of what was believed two years ago.
Oh and one last thing. Lets suppose Iraq did have WMD and in the future had used them against us, or transfered them to somebody else who would. What would all you people be saying then? You'd all be screaming bloody murder that Bush didn't act sooner to stop it.

Quoting SlamClick (Reply 70): Academics are famously left-leaning.

Fine with me. People who think for themselves are left-leaning. It proves what I've said-many on the right (and their knee-jerk one-liners about Bush and Clinton seem to back this up), can't really think on their own.

Thanks for clearing that up, SlamClick!  

Quoting Daedaeg (Reply 75): Iraqis do want a successful democracy.

That's what YOU want; that's what Mr. Bush wants; that's what all the right-wingers desperately want, to salvage their asses for backing Bush in this war that was started on a ruse. What they want, I believe, is an Islamic Republic-not right on par with the extremism of Iran, but a republic based on Islamic law, and one that doesn't conjur up the terror of Saddam. They certainly don't want the government of the country that invaded them without cause.

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 79): Unfortunately you wont have much opportunity to pick apart my delusions if that's your objective because I have a life and rarely waste my time posting in here and getting my knickers all in a bunch.

That's fine. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen, Adam. And I'm glad agree your arguments are full of cow cookies.  

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 79): I've just had enough of listening the this kind of absurdity and wanted to throw in my two cents.

Absurdity is this place's middle name, dude. You throw out lines, where you're giving Bush and the GOP the online equivalent of a political BJ, you should expect to get absurdity thrown at you. Becuase that's what you did.

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 79): I'm referring to the intelligence that's most Western Governments had throughout the 90's long before Bush was President.

Who freaking CARES what they thought in the 90's, Adam! None of them launched a war over intel than was suspect, as we're finding out now! Stop trying to let Bush off the hook by saying "Well, Clinton, and Blair, and the Dems in Congress, and Joe down at the corner drug store agreed." It doesn't freaking MATTER. What's the old saying, Adam? "The Buck Stops Here." It stops with the Commander-in-Chief. That's Bush. He cast the die, and he was wrong, and you and he aren't man enough to admit that-instead, in typical GOP playbook style, you blame everyone else.

It doesn't wash anymore, dude. The American people, with the excption of fewer and fewer head-bobbers like yourself are buying it. He's the one who started the war, and, as my good friend and your fellow Conservative ANCFlyer has said to me before, he'll get the credit or the blame for it-no one else. Stop deflecting the criticism off the man.

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 79): Perhaps one day I'll be able to have my wish granted, and leave the USA for good without returning.

Don't let the door of freedom hit you on the way out, pretty boy.

Quoting PWM2TXLHopper (Reply 79): Lets suppose Iraq did have WMD and

Suppose all you want. He didn't. End of story. Smoke your herb, and leave the country to those of us who do love it, even if we loathe it's present "leadership"

"The Iraq Body Count -- a London-based group comprised of academics, human rights and anti-war activists -- said on Tuesday that 24,865 civilians had died between March 20, 2003 and March 19, 2005."

Well, well, well,.....experts speak. I smell an agenda being stirred. Some of you just jump on the bandwagon and develop lust over these figures.

The civilian deaths in war time are regrettable but they are a part of the world we all live in. Blame the Americans? No, blame the forces that caused it all in the first place. Forces of insanity and hate that now account for most of the deaths of their own fellow Arab brothers in record numbers. Where is all the complaining about that? We hear none. Arabs are now killing more Arabs in Iraq than any other "group". Again we don't hear about that do we?

Intelligent people see through the charade that most of you and these so called number counting experts are playing.

Thank you very very much.

Quoting 787 (Reply 81): Blame the Americans? No, blame the forces that caused it all in the first place.

Blame nobody. I could go back to the beginning of time with shoulda/coulda/woulda, but it won't change anything. Accountability is important, but in instances such as these, you can't single out any one cause. There are too many intervening and antecedent variables. People miss the point. I don't give a God-da*n about lives lost. I want to think about lives preserved and lives left to save. Wondering who killed who isn't going to help progress.

BaylorAirBear

edit:typo

[Edited 2005-07-21 07:18:37]

Quoting Dtwclipper (Thread starter): Nearly 25,000 civilians have been killed since the start of the Iraq war

But, wait, I guess these dead civilians aren't part of the 'culture of life' Bush advertises?

President Bush told thousands...yesterday that his administration is making progress toward fostering a "culture of life"...
---http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32959-2005Jan24.html

Could it be that 'culture of life' is just bullshit garnered to gain political support among the anti-abortion crowd? What makes stem cells and unborn fetuses so important to this 'culture of life', while Iraqi citizens get no such protection?

Can someone please explain how culture of life and offensive aggressive warfare go hand in hand?

Cairo

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 4): Any Iraqi will tell you they were happier before the invasion with Saddam in power.

Well, for those of us who don't confuse our opinion with facts, we have found that actually asking 'any Iraqi' reveals they are happier after the war and are happy that Saddam is gone. They also by majority say the war is worth it in terms of lives lost.

You are confusing your resentment of American power with Iraqi opinion. Iraqis are happy the war came and removed Saddam, repeated polling proves this, although they are definitely less than happy with the current state of violence.

The Iraqis are thankful for the invasion, the US voted Bush back into office based in part on the Iraq situation. What relevance is the opinion of 3rd party nations if the Iraqis themselves are happy the invasion took place?

Cairo


"Iraqis say that it was worth it to get rid of Saddam in recent opinion polls"
(this is from an anti-war article and newspaper)
Citing Iraqi opinion polls of January - May, 2005
Independent on Sunday (London), June 26, 2005
http://www.independent.co.uk/

"The most extensive survey of public opinion undertaken in Iraq reveals that most people think life is better since the removal of Saddam Hussein."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ws%2F2004%2F03%2F17%2Fwterr317.xml

"An opinion poll suggests most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the war"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3514504.stm

a comprehensive list of Iraqi opinion polls is found here:
http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55

Great to see these polls. Things are not as they seem as they are often said by the "experts" on here. Frankly, this thread has been quiet since some doses of reality have been served.

Bravo on this.