I am Not Breaking this one sorry!!!!

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Bodies found, or something.

It very much depends on who you count & how they died, unfortunately.

I don't want MY life becoming a statistic.

[crisis]

everyone has their own opinion about the war and i mean any war.You are accusing US of criminal act right?,i disagree with you see what i mean,this doesn't make you right or wrong it is just your opinion.P.S nice to see you again..

I am speaking metaphorically but who knows how history will judge this and who knows how a International War Crimes Court may if they were allowed.

[nota]

I am speaking metaphorically but who knows how history will judge this and who knows how a International War Crimes Court may if they were allowed.

On the subject of American war crimes there was an interesting interview on ABC (AU govt media) radio yesterday, canvassing future war crime prosecutions stemming from the abominable US actions in Iraq - in this case torture, Abu Graib etc

The discussion centres on demonstrable culpability against those 'highest authority' players in the White House

If you missed it (and for those interested) its worth a listen imo
http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/aud...ippe-sands.mp3

[Fleet 500]

A January report had it at 1million having corrected an earlier 1.2 millions estimate.

What report is that? (A link and a source?)

So I can imagine a journo "rounding" that to 1.5 for the sensationalism )
On top of that, they noted they were unable to research in three areas of the country for safety reasons. So maybe the journo just thought they'd add a bit to cover those three areas ?
However, NO credible figure has listed below 1 million !!!

Now, care to say where the 100,000 figure comes from an how collected?

Iraq body count... Iraq Body Count... is know to be relatively accurate (there is no 100% accurate source).

Also don't forget that many of the casualties are from homicide bombers.

[QuattroMan]

I am speaking metaphorically but who knows how history will judge this and who knows how a International War Crimes Court may if they were allowed.

you are kinda right but,i wander what will history say about Saddam murdering thousands of people,please don't tell me that you rather see Saddam dictating Iraq.i like to remind you guys why we are there....i will never forget this till the day i die.....


YouTube - The Falling Man: World Trade Center Horrors EDITED

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Lol at Homicide bombing. that only works if the person setting the bomb doesn't die.

So like....pretty much every US bomb ever dropped on Iraq then.

as for the Body count. thats deaths that can be counted & cross checked. which, thanks to the wonderfully chaotic nature of Iraq at the moment, and the nature of Islam in the sense that the dead need to be buried quite quickly after death, makes counting not the easiest job.

The Body count website indicates the reports they receive and can cross check do not completely represent what is happening In Iraq.

Another 22,586–24,159 civilian deaths have been recorded in 2007 through Iraq Body Count’s extensive monitoring of media and official reports. These figures, though undoubtedly incomplete, are the most comprehensive and well-established currently available, and show beyond any doubt that civil security in Iraq remains in a parlous state

i like to remind you guys why we are there....i will never forget this till the day i die.....

So you've bought into the Association between Iraq and Al-Qaeda too. No one is doubting what happened in New York was awful. but is what happened the best reponse?

Let ALONE justified?

[QuattroMan]

What report is that? (A link and a source?)



Iraq body count... Iraq Body Count... is know to be relatively accurate (there is no 100% accurate source).

Also don't forget that many of the casualties are from homicide bombers.

just like you said before,There is no balance on this forum (conservatives/liberals). There are way too many liberals on this board to have a fair debate.As much as i like UCP, i don't like the anti-American part of it.

[QuattroMan]

So you've bought into the Association between Iraq and Al-Qaeda too. No one is doubting what happened in New York was awful. but is what happened the best reponse?

Let ALONE justified?

IB4R lets say you are 100% right about Iraq part of it,,,,please tell me this,you rather see Saddam still ruling Iraq?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

No one said they would.

No one is arguing that point. least of all me.

We were talking about the current state of politics in the US. with an Incumbent president who will likely be looked upon unfavourably in the future.

Not about a dictator who was kept in power & armed for 8 years by the same country who then sought his downfall after he invaded someone more important to the US using his army, was not removed from power when this occured, and was instead allowed to continue this cruel treatment of his people that the Bush Jr administration was so quick to jump on as a Second justification for a war which they couldn't convince people was correct in the first place.

Does that answer your question?

[Fleet 500]

Lol at Homicide bombing. that only works if the person setting the bomb doesn't die.

Interesting... you laugh at homicide bombers? Do you realize how many innocent Iraqis they have murdered? Fathers, mothers, children?

[Fleet 500]

Not about a dictator who was kept in power & armed for 8 years by the same country who then sought his downfall after he invaded someone more important to the US using his army, was not removed from power when this occured, and was instead allowed to continue this cruel treatment of his people that the Bush Jr administration was so quick to jump on as a Second justification for a war which they couldn't convince people was correct in the first place.

He was armed (but not "kept in power") because back than Iran was the enemy. Conditions do change throughout the years, you do realize that?

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Interesting... you laugh at homicide bombers? Do you realize how many innocent Iraqis they have murdered? Fathers, mothers, children?

I laugh at the newspeak term. certainly not the action.

but you can see, from that, how your interpretation of the actual is not in tune with reality

[IBrake4Rainbows]

He was armed (but not "kept in power") because back than Iran was the enemy. Conditions do change throughout the years, you do realize that?

More than you know.

But what changed after the first Gulf war the meant keeping him in power was in the United States interests?

Furthermore, why was he allowed to continue to pose a 'threat' for nearly 2 1/2 years before action was taken by the Bush administration. He was obviously a shady character who couldn't be trusted in 2003, why not in 2000? Why not in 1992?

[Fleet 500]

I laugh at the newspeak term. certainly not the action.

but you can see, from that, how your interpretation of the actual is not in tune with reality

Really? How so?

[Fleet 500]

More than you know.

But what changed after the first Gulf war the meant keeping him in power was in the United States interests?

Furthermore, why was he allowed to continue to pose a 'threat' for nearly 2 1/2 years before action was taken by the Bush administration. He was obviously a shady character who couldn't be trusted in 2003, why not in 2000? Why not in 1992?

What are you talking about? In 1998, Congress passed and Clinton signed a bill making regime change in Iraq official U.S. policy. Doesn't sound like the U.S. wanted to keep Saddam in power!