I thought you wanted to argue about the reasons for going to war? So far you listed protests you remebered, a discredited memo and some nut job as your argument. Not looking good.
Actually .. you need to make the arguement to goto war. Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you who wish to be so violent in the name of safety.
ya, some crackpot.... only an Ambassador
and no, the memo hasn't been discredited....
The study by US and Iraqi researchers, led by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, surveyed 1,000 households in 33 randomly chosen areas in Iraq. It found that the risk of violent death was 58 times higher in the period since the invasion, and that most of the victims were women and children.
"Making conservative assumptions, about 100,000 excess deaths have happened ... Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths, and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths," said Les Roberts of the Baltimore institution. The researchers excluded Fallujah, the most violent area of Iraq, from their results, which would have made the toll higher. But the finding that air strikes caused the highest casualties casts doubt on US claims that air attacks allow pinpoint precision.
Oct-2004
it's a year later ....even if they overestimated then, by now it's alot of people that died for this cause your so fervently supporting.
==========
The point being that it doesn't matter what stance anyone takes on terror, they are gonna come after you regardless. TERROR!
Well I'm saying the same thing .... however makeing Iraq the place for a 'War on Terror' is immoral.
