I think it would be safe to say at this point, that this is a horrible blunder!:disgust

I can certainly be wrong on this issue...but Iraq is not and has never been our enemy. Even in Gulf War I Iraq wasn't our enemy. The purpose of that war was to liberate Kuwait. We did, blew some shit up in Iraq, paid a brief visit and left.

Bush didn't like Saddam but even Saddam wasn't our "enemy." Has everyone lost site of the enemy? The stated enemy are the "terrorists." And, yes...there are plenty of them in Iraq. But it's an allusion to believe Iraq is or even was an enemy of the United States. Though now I would venture to say the majority of Iraqi's view the US as the enemy.

Since we don't know who the civillians were and weren't since they didn't ask during their poll (for some unknown reason), then I guess we won't know which ones were enemies and which weren't.:1orglaugh

Innocent civillians get killed in war, and it is terrible. So maybe we agree on that.

If you think the United States is killing civillians as a policy, then we disagree.
If you think we shouldn't have gone to war with Iraq, then we disagree. I wish Saddam had complied and averted this war. Believe me, whatever the number of dead iraqis and americans is, the number will only get bigger, so you might as well get used to it for awhile.

You are kidding right? Saddam was not our enemy? You would consider him an ally in the first and second gulf war? Would you consider North Korea an ally too?

Laughable.

One does not have to be an ally if they are not an enemy.

Please define the relationship between the US and Saddam regime, if not defined as an enemy.

Enemy:
a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent.

a hostile nation or state.

i love how some of you can read an entire article and get stuck on 1 line. ill pick this one:

"Deaths attributed to coalition forces accounted for 31 percent of the dead"

who killed the other 69%?

And over the past 60 years the numbers have continued to drop. Believe me, the Holocaust numbers were huge, but certainly if it wasn't such a taboo issue the numbers would of dropped even more. Something like 12 Million people gassed to death was the original claim. Noone, and I mean noone believes that number today. 4 Million in Auschwitz is now 1 million, and plenty of respectable people believe that is exaggerated also. There is always propoganda in war, and after war on both sides.

Are these numbers real? Maybe not. If they went around and asked people I'd say the number is highly inflated as most of them hate the US and them being in country, but still, I am sure alot more have died than would of under Saddam in the same time period. Originally I liked your posts, but the more and more I see of you I think you are just a tool in the same way neo-Con's are tools. Jumping on every bit of bullshit politicised piece of garbage and spewing out some bullshit from it. I guess it is the way of the world, but try to step above it once in a while, it makes for a better world when people don't think one point of view (whether it is socialist, neo-conservative, republican, democrat, or whatever) is always right.

Please feel free o quote the bs I posted here ...

My original post, till " id hit it " jerks came in, was that those people would not be dead if that invasion hadn't taken place ...

So please point out and quote.

Somehow that 655,000 seems *much* higher than than those being monitored elsewhere where the casualty figure is approx circa 50,000 with a possible three or four times more being injured.

Considering this data is originating in the US and at a time leading to midterm elections, there is a reasonable cause for suspicion. But who knows - the report prob needs to be checked out further.

Meanwhile, of course Bush had his predictable views:
That's ironic, considering neither Bush nor George Casey "do body counts" - why are they offering an opinion now?

The total truth on casualties of this war are yet unknown - and prob far higher than 665,000 and into the millions over the next decade in deaths resulting from diseases caused by depleted uranium.

Why is the US in Iraq? I forgot the latest reason :)

????

You didn't know ... here goes:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - There was a bit of unfinished business left over in Baghdad from the 1991 Gulf War. The U.S. Army has taken care of it.

At the Al-Rashid Hotel, President Bush the elder - father of the current American chief executive who ordered this year's invasion of Iraq - is a doormat no more.

U.S. soldiers visited the battered Al-Rashid on Thursday night wielding hammers and chisels, and dug out the intricate tile mosaic of the former president that was used for years as a state-sponsored insult.

In its place, they laid a portrait of Saddam Hussein.

That cost 3000 + dead american soldiers, 20 000 + mutilated one and 500 000 + iraqi deaths....

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/04/12/photos/wor-hotel.jpg

If you mean this thread then I agree! :thumbsup

I would have thought it would cost more. Sounds like a bargain!

why wont you fuck off already ?
i knew this thread would be filled with your pointless replies all over before i even clicked in .

im impressed :thumbsup

Of course - I knew there was some good reason :1orglaugh

So US forces have an interest in rearranging crafts and showing an interest in fine art? That's nice. As long as they have something to do - it keeps them off the streets and helps reduce the violence :winkwink:

:2 cents: [read more sources on the same topic/story and you will better judge information] :2 cents:

A controversial new study contends nearly 655,000 Iraqis have died because of the war, suggesting a far higher death toll than other estimates.
The timing of the survey's release, just a few weeks before the U.S. congressional elections, led one expert to call it "politics."

In the new study, researchers attempt to calculate how many more Iraqis have died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. Their conclusion, based on interviews of households and not a body count, is that about 600,000 died from violence, mostly gunfire. They also found a small increase in deaths from other causes like heart disease and cancer.

"Deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author of the study, said in a statement......

An accurate count of Iraqi deaths has been difficult to obtain, but one respected group puts its rough estimate at closer to 50,000. And at least one expert was skeptical of the new findings.

breitbart.com/news/2006/10/10/D8KM6GL80.html

TT

it is difficult to come to a figure ... This is like a poll ... same as claiming the number of deads under Sadaam ... estimates.

wrong!

VIENNA, Austria - About 150,000 Iraqis have been killed by insurgents since the U.S.-led invasion more than three years ago, a senior Iraqi official said Thursday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15642324/


.. and this is a low figure ...

:thumbsup

really horrible..