The Iraq / war on terror thread

[jgfnsr]

GNR 3.0,



From your own input at the 1st post in this thread one easily gets the expression? that you didn't really respond/react? to Hassan's death per se either, just wanted to attack people who don't bless the Invasion of Iraq.

Thanks for pointing that out.

You mean impression...?

My intent isn't to leave any impressions or "expressions."? I'll outright tell ya where I stand on things so there's no mistakes or misunderstandings.

I figure I care about Hassan's death as much as the next person.? Give or take.? One of many innocent people caught in the middle of this war.? I just thought it was very telling how not so much as a peep of that got mentioned here, while a thread had already been started about the marine who shot the insurgent.? Reminds me of a story NBC news did the other night about Al Jazeera.? Al Jazeera plays the footage of the marine shooting the insurgent over and over again but won't play the video of Hassan being shot in the head.? Now, people can talk about "the board being down" all they want.? I've been around here long enough, before I "officially signed-up," to know where most are coming from.? And it seems to me that more than a few people here have a certain parallel mentality with those who run Al-Jazeera.? And that's just a hop, skip, and a jump away from the terrorists they celebrate.

As I've said before, I'm an independent.? You won't find me denying Fox News leans to the right, even though others like SLCPUNK harp about it and deny that there is any liberal bias in other media news organizations.? And since I mentioned you, SLCPUNK, I really wish you'd quit churnin' out that 100,000 Iraqi civilian dead number.? I realize you believe it only strengthens your argument but it's grossly inflated.? You tell other people to do their research.? Well, do your own.

Bottom line, after 9/11, America could either fight a "micro-war" or a "macro-war" against terrorism.? Obviously Bush chose the latter, which included going after nations that support terrorism.? Now I suppose one can take the classic liberal approach to all this.? They read a bunch of books, and then tell people how much they read, thinking they've got all the answers while everyone who disagrees with them is misinformed and ignorant.? "Well America has done this and we need to consider that....blah blah blah."? They spend ALL of their time with a combo of self-reflection/flaggelation.? It's soooo cliche it's not even funny.

If people here hate Bush then they would outright loath me if I were President.? I would have dealt with Syria at the same time.? Hell, they are right next door.? And other countries, like Iran and North Korea, would know they would be a hairs-breadth from hell being unleashed on them.? Meanwhile the U.N. (being the paper-tiger it is) and any nation that didn't support the U.S. could bitch all they want.? I mean, what else are they gonna do?? They would learn fast that my #1 priority wasn't to be Dale Carnagie.? Ya know?? Win friends and influence people...

[jgfnsr]

The Marine was 100% justified in doing what he did.

A - fucking - men.

[SLCPUNK]

Oil my fucking ass, that money goes to the Iraqi people. That's why when a fukn oil pipeline is blown up by insurgents oil prices go up cos where fucken paying for it. Not stealing

This war is for political purposes, and world dominance. Nothing more.

I never said if u didn't support the war u were wrong. This topic is about her death, not the if it was right or wrong to enter Iraq.

Yet you are against Bush in this war. Well mate that leaves you supporting the bad side intentionally or unintentionally.

I dunno...what do you call that?

Here it is simply, who killed Maragaret Hassan? Bush or Thugs. Um yeah bush travelled over their and personally hacked at her and shot her...how did i forget silly me

You are ignoring my posts and my point and acting like a child.

These thoughts are my own because their MY opinions so how the fuck am i not MUSTERING thoughts of my own.

Nah...Fox, Hannity, O'reilly and all the low class ilk have been saying exactly what you say, which I was referring to:

Yet you are against Bush in this war. Well mate that leaves you supporting the bad side intentionally or unintentionally.



Thugs killed this woman not Bush. He is not to blame. If u think Bush did it u are WRONG. He did NOT  pull the trigger, some thug did. Thats fact and thats in black and white.

Again you are confusing what I am talking about. Probably on purpose.

Thugs weren't there until Bush showed up. She served Iraq for years and years without problems. Do the math......

"fact".

[Hannibal]

Let's all remember that the US didn't get into WW2 before it was attacked in Pearl Harbor. It wasn't like they were feeling for the Jews and the French (in my humble opinion of course) however, the American people were fighting on their own risk in England, France, Poland and Spain, but not as a government.

[SLCPUNK]

There are WMD's...they used and still managed to hide em somewhere.


hahaha!!! Whatever you say dude!

You and NOBODY ELSE say that.

I'll tell you why America did not do anything about Iraq before now. Because if they did try to rid a dictator and a corrupt and unjust government anti-war fucks like urselfs would march in the streets of the world like the do-gooders u are.

Interesting, and well thought out.

So you think that Reagan looked the other way while Saddam gassed his own people...was because an anti-war fuck, such as myself, might march in the street in protest? Wow, we sure have some power don't we? Guess we lost all that power right after 9-11...how could that be?

People like u alow fuckheads to rule people harshly.

No...People like Reagan allow fuckheads to rule people harshly because they were doing business with certain fuckheads at that time.

Someone treats their people barbarically so a country with the willingness to do soemthing about it try to help yet there critisized. WHY?

Well for starters Saddam gassed, murdered, and brutalized his own people for 20 years before we decided to do shit about it. That is why.

He also did not attack us on 9-11, Osama did. He was not even thinking about attacking us. And you are also forgetting that your president's reason to invade was WMD FIRST. He didn't start with the "free Iraq" bullshit until he didn't find any WMD. Which you also forget. It became "free iraq" after NOTHING WAS FOUND. Get it?

 how the fuck is that bad. I don't understand why people who want justice and a fair go for everyone are critisized. Thats what pisses me off.

You don't understand what you are talking about, that is why you are pissed. I'd guess you are probably pissed quite often.

People like u allow these cunts to breed, and unwillingly lead to the deaths of ur people. But nah d/w about that eh.

Yea, because I am against invading a country that DID NOT ATTACK US, I want the 'cunts to breed' as you put it.


Weaker military force than last time eh? Still a military force weaker or stronger is a FORCE.

Yea right. We toppled that 'force' in what? Two weeks? Some force. Either way, it was weaker than it was pre-first gulf war and no threat to us. Period.

[SLCPUNK]

  I realize you believe it only strengthens your argument but it's grossly inflated.  You tell other people to do their research.  Well, do your own.

Funny, you come here and just give an opinion telling me I'm wrong. My source is the respected (and peer reviewed) Lancet medical journal. Where is yours from?

http://www.thelancet.com/


Did you do your research?

I doubt it.

[matt88]

Slc u say that Iraq did not attack the U.S that it was Osama, quite right, but the main purpose of this war to remove the threat it posed on the U.S. So i don't see a problem with that.

Who's Fox, Hannity, O' Reilly?..I'm from Australia i don't have a clue who they are i belive O Reilly is a radio host or something?..So i can't exactly be taking the same words purposely from people i've never heard off.

No more arguing i can't be fucked. Typing to a dude in America ain't gonna change anything so i'll quit. But insurgents killed that woman not Bush. U can't say otherwise.

[matt88]

Let's all remember that the US didn't get into WW2 before it was attacked in Pearl Harbor. It wasn't like they were feeling for the Jews and the French (in my humble opinion of course) however, the American people were fighting on their own risk in England, France, Poland and Spain, but not as a government.

All correct. America did not want to enter the war because obviously it would lose their fighters in a war that had nothing to do with them. When they were attacked they became part of that war. No one can deny that America tiped the scales in favor of the Allies in WW11.

Germany would have withdrawn from Russia, and would slaughtered them on their way to Berlin. And they would have launched an assualt on Great Britain similar to Dday and would have pulverized Great Britain. The Luftwaffe already dominated the air and Germany already controlled all off Europe.

[Rain]

Slc u say that Iraq did not attack the U.S that it was Osama, quite right, but the main purpose of this war to remove the threat it posed on the U.S. So i don't see a problem with that.

Who's Fox, Hannity, O' Reilly?..I'm from Australia i don't have a clue who they are i belive O Reilly is a radio host or something?..So i can't exactly be taking the same words purposely from people i've never heard off.

No more arguing i can't be fucked. Typing to a dude in America ain't gonna change anything so i'll quit. But insurgents killed that woman not Bush. U can't say otherwise.

What we keep on telling you and what you fail to answer is : what threat ? Iraq was no threat to the USA ... where are the WMDs ? .... with this war a country can attack another country in a pre-emptive war ... a quite dangerous precedent if you ask me.

[D]

if a soldier feels threatened he has the right to protect his life.  this is a war!! how was he suppose to know the guy lying there wasnt one of the soldiers firing at him? what is he suppose to do wait around till the guy blows himself up and kills all the marines standin there?

im not gonna second guess anyone over there risking their lives for this country cause i sure as hell aint gonna sit back and criticize someone doing something i know i dont have the balls to do.

the guy was wounded he was dying anyway, u know over in iraq there are suicide bombers and all kinds of crazy shit. if i felt the least bit threatened i wouldve done the exact same thing.  in the heat of battle making tough split second decisions is the difference in whether u   and your fellow soldiers live or die.  i think honor and war in the same sentence is an oxymoron.  those guys are in Iraq to kill, i dont think u can punish the guy for makin a decision that may have saved his and other soldiers lives.

maybe i sound like an american redneck, i dont give a shit, i know if i was in war and i was faced with a situation and i thought there was even the slightest chance i could get killed, u damn right id do the exact same thing.

[Hannibal]

I agree with the above, although the killing it self was done with a cold blood

[Skeletor]

I find the whole "America saving the world's ass in WW2" an interesting topic. God knows Americans are constantly reminding everyone of it, but I wonder how true it really is. Now, I haven't studied history in a while, but in high school WW2 was my favorite topic during history lessons, and from what I've gathered the US had a fairly miniscule effect in the outcome. The Soviet army was simply huge, and the losses Germany faced in Stalingrad were staggering. The eastern front is where the fate of Europe was really determined, in my opinion. The Russians lost nearly 14 million soldiers in the war. What are the 0.5 million US deaths compared to that? I apologize if I make it sound like 0.5 million isn't a lot, because it is, but things have to be put to perspective. I highly doubt "we'd all be speaking German" if it wasn't for the US. The speaking Russian -thing sounds more likely.

[Charity Case]

if a soldier feels threatened he has the right to protect his life.? this is a war!! how was he suppose to know the guy lying there wasnt one of the soldiers firing at him? what is he suppose to do wait around till the guy blows himself up and kills all the marines standin there?

im not gonna second guess anyone over there risking their lives for this country cause i sure as hell aint gonna sit back and criticize someone doing something i know i dont have the balls to do.

the guy was wounded he was dying anyway, u know over in iraq there are suicide bombers and all kinds of crazy shit. if i felt the least bit threatened i wouldve done the exact same thing.? in the heat of battle making tough split second decisions is the difference in whether u? ?and your fellow soldiers live or die.? i think honor and war in the same sentence is an oxymoron.? those guys are in Iraq to kill, i dont think u can punish the guy for makin a decision that may have saved his and other soldiers lives.

maybe i sound like an american redneck, i dont give a shit, i know if i was in war and i was faced with a situation and i thought there was even the slightest chance i could get killed, u damn right id do the exact same thing.

Somebody once asked General Schwarzkopf how he possibly planned on beating an enemy who was so willing and so eager to die for their God.  He replied something to effect of "If they are willing to die for their god then it's our job to arrange that meeting".  All this soldier did was help arrange that meeting.  People die in war.  It happens.  This soldier is exactly the type of marine we want fighting on the front line in war.  I hope he doesn't get court marshalled for this.

[MCT]

Criticize criticize criticize.  And meanwhile the rest of the world, including the UN, does nothing about the problems in the world.

Ah yes. Tolkien's eagles to the rescue...

Hardly a cogent statement my pedantic friend...

First off, the UN is grossly ineffectual as a preventative institution and is oft-relegated to reactionary undertakings, the likes of which are frequently stymied by insufferable instances of 'slow-as-molasses' bureaucratical procedure. There is no doubt about this. However the UN is still the bastion of peace, of world order, of human rights, and quality of life that it claims to be. To put it simply, it's the best we've got. And notwithstanding its obvious problems, the overall ideals of the UN are something that we strive to emulate as a global community. Thusly to mock the UN with the rather haughty supposition of unequivocal righteousness - made possible by Osama and a few big airplanes - shows a narrowmindedness, a tunnel vision, through which the rest of the world is concurrently mocked.

Moreover, to state that the 'rest of the world' - along with the UN - does nothing about global problems, shows a nonsensical worldview that doesn't deserve an inch of exploration. Of course we all know that you're referring to Iraq (personally I'm glad Hussein is out of the picture), but I have to ask - where are the WMD's? Where is the justifiable evidence for war? (Please note that if you try and refute these questions, you must also refute the reasons why Powell - the only voice of moderation in the current admin - has stepped down).

The last time we were complete isolationists, Hilter was burnings Jews in ovens and the Nazis were drinking coffee in Paris.

Isolationists?

Isolationism I'm afraid, is nonexistent at this stage of the game...

What an utterly laughable concept!

I'm afraid that your 'Charge of the Light Brigade' sentiments carry little weight in this particular context.....................

[LeftToDecay]

You mean impression...?

?

Yas.
[Add the usual English-ain?t-my-1st-language-so-I-occasionally-blahblah -remark here.]

I just thought it was very telling how not so much as a peep of that got mentioned here, while a thread had already been started about the marine who shot the insurgent.  Reminds me of a story NBC news did the other night about Al Jazeera.  Al Jazeera plays the footage of the marine shooting the insurgent over and over again but won't play the video of Hassan being shot in the head.

For starters, a marine murdering  a wounded enemy on TV is much more controversial than a terrorist murdering  a hostage  so is it  really so  suprising that   former provokes me enough to make me create a thread about it while the latter doesn't?
Besides, by the time I had learned about Hassan?s death there was already a thread here about the matter....(Well, a thread officially  about Hassan?s death, unofficially about how much people who don?t  think like you suck.)...but that's not really important here.

You are basically saying that if someone makes a thread about the murder of the wounded  insurgent but hasn?t commented the murder of Hassan it is obvious this someone feels lots of symphaty towars folks kind enough to behead people like Hassan?Wow. It should get you in the finals when it comes to Conclusions of the year -awards.
If someone on internet messageboard disses Team  Bush or a marine who kills a wounded enemy  without constantly reminding everyone that your average terrorist is a bastard who often murders innocent, this someone clearly is barrel minded semi-symphatizator of terrorists? You could have spared lots of space and the time both mine&yours if you had just said soimething along the lines of

Everyone who doesn?t like marines killing wounded  has a barrel in hed and likes terrorists!!!!

And also, I don?t think  anyone here(except Jarmo and the mods who belong to The Inner Circle) get  paid from posting shit here,I don?t think this is a sub-forum for editors of Reuters. I wasn?t aware that I have some sort of responsibility to 24/7 beat the refresh button of dozen  news sites,and rush here to start threads about every single thing in the world that pisses me off  just to please you and to prevent you from freakily drawing freaky conclusions about whom/what  I do or do not symphatize.

You announced that you had been lurking here for a long time.
 You have been here, but you haven't created any threads or even commented about deaths of americans/iraqi/whomever!OMG! You don't care about anything1!1You slacker.

[jarmo]

And also, I don?t think? anyone here(except Jarmo and the mods who belong to The Inner Circle) get? paid from posting shit here,I don?t think this is a sub-forum for editors of Reuters.

I get paid? Who took my pay check? 




/jarmo

[GnRNightrain]

Criticize criticize criticize.? And meanwhile the rest of the world, including the UN, does nothing about the problems in the world.

Ah yes. Tolkien's eagles to the rescue...

Hardly a cogent statement my pedantic friend...

Actually its a very cogent argument.  The people that criticize us benefit from what they are criticizing us about. 

First off, the UN is grossly ineffectual as a preventative institution and is oft-relegated to reactionary undertakings, the likes of which are frequently stymied by insufferable instances of 'slow-as-molasses' bureaucratical procedure. There is no doubt about this.

We agree so far.

However the UN is still the bastion of peace, of world order, of human rights, and quality of life that it claims to be.

Could have fooled me.  Kofi Anan seems to criticize the US in its efforts to get rid of Suddam more than he criticizes the genocide in Sudan.  What human rights?  When does the UN act on human rights other than when the US takes the lead?  They provide support, but never fight for human rights without the US military presence to back its threats.  This is the same entity whose leaders undermine efforts against dictators so they can make a few bucks.

To put it simply, it's the best we've got.

  I would disagree.  I think that we definately need world organizations such as the UN, however, the corruptness of the UN and its inability to get anything accomplished almost makes it more of boulder in the road, than an entity that creates solutions and tackles the problems in the world.  It may be the best idea (to have a world organization) but there is quite a lot of mending that needs to be done before we rely on it for everything.

And notwithstanding its obvious problems, the overall ideals of the UN are something that we strive to emulate as a global community. Thusly to mock the UN with the rather haughty supposition of unequivocal righteousness - made possible by Osama and a few big airplanes - shows a narrowmindedness, a tunnel vision, through which the rest of the world is concurrently mocked.

Were not mocking it with righteousness, we are mocking it because it fails to do what it was set out to do.  Without the threat of force, the UN is useless.  The UN and many European countries simply use a threat of force that has no legitmacy therefore it does nothing to make change in international affairs.  You must have bargaining chips and threats in order to get things done.  That is reality, and the UN fails to realize that. 
I think the true narrowmindedness comes from countries across the world who question our true motivations for the war on terror.  Afterall, it was us that strived to put Germany and Japan back on the mao as economic powers after WWII.  Not just for the benefit of having a good economic partner, but also so those countries could prosper themselves. 
There is a certain point where we have to look to our own security and survival.  That is what we are doing with the war on terror.

Moreover, to state that the 'rest of the world' - along with the UN - does nothing about global problems, shows a nonsensical worldview that doesn't deserve an inch of exploration.

Im simply saying there is not much they do without us.  Look at Sudan, NK, Iran, China-Taiwan, Chechnya.  Countries are pleading for us to do things on this stuff, but if the UN is such an able body then why dont they do anything?
The rest of the world does a lot, except put down the foot when military force needs to be used or used as a threat.  They most countries wont do anything, or anything without the lead of the US.  Which of course always makes us look like the warmongers and the ones that being the world police.  We would be happy if the UN or other countries would take responsibilities in these areas, but instead they decide to free-ride off of us and then criticize us when we act.

Of course we all know that you're referring to Iraq (personally I'm glad Hussein is out of the picture), but I have to ask - where are the WMD's? Where is the justifiable evidence for war? (Please note that if you try and refute these questions, you must also refute the reasons why Powell - the only voice of moderation in the current admin - has stepped down).

The justifiable evidence for war is that Suddam refused to cooperate once 1441 was passed.  All the evidence pointed in the direction of him having the weapons (european, american, Jordanian, Australian, and Russian intelligence).  Along with the fact that he wouldnt cooperate, seems like pretty darn good evidence that he had them.  Why not cooperate?  He would still be in power if he did.  We went to the UN with three reasons to justify the war.  WMDs was one of them, along with Suddam's abuse of his people (remember that this was enough of a justification in Bosnia, which ironically the French were urging action for a long time).  Many countries urged us to push the WMD issue more, since many countries wouldnt vote for a resolution if it just had to do with humanitarian issues, because these humanitarian issues are present in a number of countries.
Why did Powell step down other than the fact that he always intended to serve just one term?  Enlighten me.

The last time we were complete isolationists, Hilter was burnings Jews in ovens and the Nazis were drinking coffee in Paris.

Isolationists?

Isolationism I'm afraid, is nonexistent at this stage of the game...

What an utterly laughable concept!

I agree, we can be no more isolationist after 911, than we could be after Pearl Harbor.  We can sit here and hope that no one comes and attacks us.  However, the problem with islamic extremism isnt limited to US v. Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, or Palestianian-Israeli conflicts.  It is much, much bigger and I think that anyone that thinks otherwise is fooling themself.

[LeftToDecay]

And also, I don?t think  anyone here(except Jarmo and the mods who belong to The Inner Circle) get  paid from posting shit here,I don?t think this is a sub-forum for editors of Reuters.

I get paid? Who took my pay check? 

/jarmo

LIES.

illu m [/u]inati
Jar m [/u]o

coincidence or a hidden message?
I think the answer is pretty clear.

[DRUNK]

I find the whole "America saving the world's ass in WW2" an interesting topic. God knows Americans are constantly reminding everyone of it, but I wonder how true it really is. Now, I haven't studied history in a while, but in high school WW2 was my favorite topic during history lessons, and from what I've gathered the US had a fairly miniscule effect in the outcome. The Soviet army was simply huge, and the losses Germany faced in Stalingrad were staggering. The eastern front is where the fate of Europe was really determined, in my opinion. The Russians lost nearly 14 million soldiers in the war. What are the 0.5 million US deaths compared to that? I apologize if I make it sound like 0.5 million isn't a lot, because it is, but things have to be put to perspective. I highly doubt "we'd all be speaking German" if it wasn't for the US. The speaking Russian -thing sounds more likely.

Your history teacher must have been a real moron then.

America is 100% responsible for defeating Germany and for western Europe not speaking German today.

America funded and supplied both Russia and Britain. Without this assistance, neither would have stood a chance.

If Germany could have put all its focus on Russia, the Germans would have beaten Russia.

[jgfnsr]

? I realize you believe it only strengthens your argument but it's grossly inflated.? You tell other people to do their research.? Well, do your own.

Funny, you come here and just give an opinion telling me I'm wrong. My source is the respected (and peer reviewed) Lancet medical journal. Where is yours from?

http://www.thelancet.com/


Did you do your research?

I doubt it.

IRAQ BODY COUNT Press Releases

PR10: Monday 7th November 2004

IBC response to the Lancet study estimating "100,000" Iraqi deaths

Some people have asked us why we have not increased our count to 100,000 in the light of the multiple media reports of the recent Lancet study [link] which claims this as a probable and conservative estimate of Iraqi casualties.

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths.

The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count. Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion", [link] the authors clearly state that "many" of the dead in their sample may have been combatants [P.7]). Iraq Body Count only includes reports where there are feasible methods of distinguishing military from civilian deaths (most of the uncertainty that remains in our own count - the difference between our reported Minimum and Maximum - arises from this issue). Our count is purely a civilian count.

One frequently cited misapprehension is that IBC "only can count deaths where journalists are present."[link] This is incorrect, and appears to arise from unfamiliarity with the variety of sources which the media may report and IBC has used. These sources include hospital and morgue officials giving totals for specific incidents or time periods, totals which in turn have sometimes been integrated into overall tolls of deaths and injuries for entire regions of Iraq as collated by central agencies such as the Iraqi Health Ministry (see KRT 25th September 2004 [link]); these are all carefully separated from more "direct" as well as duplicate media reporting before being added to IBC's database. The Lancet's survey data was itself gathered without journalists being present, and yet is widely reported in the press. Were the Lancet study a count and not a projection, it too could after appropriate analysis become part of the IBC database. Little-known but impeccably reported death tolls in fact constitute the larger part of IBC's numbers (as can be seen by sorting IBC's database by size of entry). We believe that such counts - when freely conducted and without official interference - have the potential to far exceed the accuracy and comprehensiveness even of local press reporting. It is after all the job of morgues and hospitals to maintain such records, and not the media's, who simply report their findings.

We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording. It is no part of our practice, at least as far as our published totals are concerned, to make any prediction or projection about what the "unseen" number of deaths might have been. This total can only be established to our satisfaction by a comprehensive count carried out by the Iraqi government, or other organisation with national or transnational authority.

Others have asked us to comment on whether the Lancet report's headline figure of 100,000 is a credible estimate. At present our resources are focused on our own ongoing work, not assessing the work of others. At an earlier stage, we did indeed provide an assessment of other counting projects [link], to provide what clarity we could for better public understanding of the issues involved. In that instance the projects under review were similar to ours, in that they attempted to amass data on actual deaths (and some of their findings have subsequently been integrated into our own count). Nonetheless, the Lancet's estimate of 100,000 deaths - which is on the scale of the death toll from Hiroshima - has, if it is accurate, such serious implications that we may return to the subject in greater detail in the near future. As of this writing we are more concerned with renewed air and ground attacks on Falluja, which last April left over 800 Iraqis dead, some 600 of them civilians (see previous IBC press release below).

It may already be noted, however, that Iraq Body Count, like the Lancet study, doesn't simply report all deaths in Iraq (people obviously die from various causes all the time) but excess deaths that can be associated directly with the military intervention and occupation of the country. In doing this, and via different paths, both studies have arrived at one conclusion which is not up for serious debate: the number of deaths from violence has skyrocketed since the war was launched (see IBC Press Release September 23rd 2003 [link]; also AP 24th May 2004 [graphic chart]).

We also recognise the bravery of the investigators who carried out the Lancet survey on the ground, and support the call for larger and more authoritative investigations with the full support of the coalition and other official bodies.

Finally, we reject any attempt, by pro-war governments and others, to minimise the seriousness of deaths so far recorded by comparing them to higher figures, be they of deaths under Saddam's regime, or in other much larger-scale wars. Amnesty International, which criticized and drew attention to the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime long before the governments which launched the 2003 attack on Iraq, estimated that violent deaths attributable to Saddam's government numbered at most in the hundreds during the years immediately leading up to 2003. Those wishing to make the "more lives ultimately saved" argument will need to make their comparisons with the number of civilians likely to have been killed had Saddam Hussein's reign continued into 2003-2004, not in comparison to the number of deaths for which he was responsible in the 1980s and early 1990s, or to casualty figures during WWII.

Minimum Civilian Casualty Count - 14,454
Maximum Civilian Casualty Count - 16,604


www.iraqbodycount.org


Obviously the exact number cannot be known.? I think that the above number are certainly lower than the actual numbers but they are much closer than the 100,000 figure.  Not that will stop your rantin' SLCPUNK...