Iraqi's 100,000 Dead

[Gixer]

Widewing,

Instead of just taking the Bush path and say the study is fake. What's your opinion if indeed it is correct and 100,000 or more have died?




...-Gixer

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Gixer
Widewing,

Instead of just taking the Bush path and say the study is fake. What's your opinion if indeed it is correct and 100,000 or more have died?




...-Gixer

It's not a "fake" study, it's a real study. They simply manipulated their survey to support their political bent.

How can one have an opinion of 100,000 dead when it's patently false that 100k civilians have been killed by coalition forces?

You rethorical question is not unlike," But if a cow COULD jump over the moon, then what you think?"

Well, cows can't jump over the moon and 100,000 Iraqi civilians have not died at the hands of Americans and Brits.

My regards,

Widewing

[Gixer]

"The fact remains that this is a "survey" and unsupported by a shred of physical evidence... In other words, it's politically movitated garbage. "

Just like the WMD's and the BS reason for the war in the first place. Which makes any loss of life even just one all the more tragic.



...-Gixer

[Gixer]

Originally posted by Widewing
It's not a "fake" study, it's a real study. They simply manipulated their survey to support their political bent.

How can one have an opinion of 100,000 dead when it's patently false that 100k civilians have been killed by coalition forces?

You rethorical question is not unlike," But if a cow COULD jump over the moon, then what you think?"

Well, cows can't jump over the moon and 100,000 Iraqi civilians have not died at the hands of Americans and Brits.

My regards,

Widewing

Ok I'll make it even simplier for you, what's your opinion on any number of civilian deaths resulting from US,Brit forces?

How many do you think might have died? 50,000,20,000,10,000? is there a number thats more acceptable to you?


...-Gixer

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Gixer
"The fact remains that this is a "survey" and unsupported by a shred of physical evidence... In other words, it's politically movitated garbage. "

Just like the WMD's and the BS reason for the war in the first place. Which makes any loss of life even just one all the more tragic.



...-Gixer

You know what, I didn't think that invading Iraq was the best path to follow either. I believed we needed to deal with the so-called "friendly" Arab nation that was actually financing the bulk of the terror, IE: The damned Saudis. I also believe that even if Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, they were not the immediate threat. In other words, "you can shoot the mad dog later since he's already in a cage."

However, I also do not believe that sanctions would do anything to weaken Hussein. He needed to be deposed, one way or the other. But, not in April of 2003. I think Bush was too preoccupied with Hussein and his advisors and the idiots in the CIA are responsible for that.

I disagreed with Bush's urgency in dealing with Iraq. But, I also believe that a Democratic administration would have done very little, probably not even going into Afghanistan.

Nonetheless, we are there now and we have to finish the mission. I cannot trust Kerry to do that.

My regards,

Widewing