English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-05-25 15:16:11 · 12 answers · asked by WRRRRR 1 in Politics & Government Military

see the following links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2551994

http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html

The study is from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore in the USA

2007-05-25 22:05:25 · update #1

12 answers

Hundreds of thousands dead, lives destroyed, thousands raped, 5 million refugees displaced from their homes, the complete destruction of a nation and a civil war that will rage for decades to come.

Saddam ran the country with more order and much less killing.

Ask the iraqi people Saddam or the US occupation, which do they prefer. The devil ran Iraq, now they are left with a hell created by the USA.

An iraqi friend of mine who went there last year described it as hell on earth. Thats exactly what the invasion has left them with.

Bush Snr knew this and did not invade for good reasons.

2007-05-25 15:40:39 · answer #1 · answered by brad6655 2 · 1 4

Dear Wrrr, where did you get your figures from the New York Times or the Iraqi Free Press?

Be very careful about throwing statistics around to make a point unless you are quite sure.

According to iraqibodycount.net, the estimated total of Iraqi deaths is between 64,000 and 70,471. Almost as many as under Saddam.

I am not a proponent of this war and never was from the get go. Afghanistan is where we should have been and my readings tell me that if we had more boots on the ground there UBL would probably be history.

Anyways, Wrrr, remember statistics don't lie but statisticians do. I am not even sure the web site was accurate, but 655,000 seems a bit to much.

Have a happy Memorial Day and give a thought or two to the young men and women who are giving their best.

2007-05-25 22:54:39 · answer #2 · answered by SgtMoto 6 · 3 1

No matter the war there will be more civilians killed the military personnel or as the military puts it collateral damage. This has always be the cost of war and the chance to change people lives hopefully for the better.

2007-05-25 22:34:59 · answer #3 · answered by squick24 3 · 2 0

were did you get that stat...it is still less than Saddam...Since then, Mr. Hussein's has been a tale of terror that scholars have compared to that of Stalin, whom the Iraqi leader is said to revere, even if his own brutalities have played out on a small scale. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people, historians have concluded. Even on a proportional basis, his crimes far surpass Mr. Hussein's, but figures of a million dead Iraqis, in war and through terror, may not be far from the mark, in a country of 22 million people.

2007-05-25 22:22:49 · answer #4 · answered by turntable 6 · 3 1

The Bush administration is not there to "save" Iraq or to bring democracy to Iraq. Before he even stepped foot inside the Oval Office, George W. Bush had his marching orders: attack Iraq - at any cost.
The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein ever since the days of Desert Storm when George H.W. Bush was criticized, ridiculed and humiliated for not 'finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time.
Secondly, Dick Cheney wanted all that OIL so he and his Exxon-Mobil buddies could get richer and richer and richer feeding America's addiction to cheap, easily-accessible foreign OIL.
Thirdly, the giant U.S. military-industrial complex realized how profitable 'war' could be right after World War II. So, as Eisenhower warned, all the politicians were bought up, pricey lobbyists were hired, and special interest groups were formed to encourage and promote more 'war'. Thus, we were involved in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Cold War; Vietnam and Desert Storm, all so companies like McDonnell-Douglass, Sikorsky, and Lockheed-Martin could boost their sagging profits. Now, a new 'war' was necessary to help enhance the profits of the Carlyle Group and Halliburton, both companies with direct links to the White House.
Because of the Bush administration's unconstitutional and illegal 'war' perpetrated on another sovereign nation that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the United States, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead, as are 3,400 U.S. soldiers. This 'war' was all for the sake of OIL and WAR PROFITEERING - at any cost in human lives.
Surely Satan has reserved a special oil-soaked corner of Hell for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, members of the Bilderberg Conference, and all 535 members of the most arrogant, cowardly, incompetent, corrupt Republican-led Congress in U.S. history that allowed this 'war' to go forward without so much as a peep of protest. May God bless all of the innocent people whom George W. Bush has murdered, and may Bush and his cronies rot in eternal damnation for their bloodthirsty avarice. -RKO- 05/25/07

2007-05-25 22:56:17 · answer #5 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 1 3

Did the American Troops kill all those civillians w/ the Democrats "shoot to wound" policy in Iraq? OR was it those crazy Muslims blowing themselves up in the public square?

Almost everyday you hear about a suicide bombing or two that killed 30-90 Iraqi Civillians, and who commited those suicide bombings? The US Troops or the crazy Muslims from the region? There killing themselves more than the US is killing them.

2007-05-25 22:20:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Of the invasion or of the insurgency? You leave out many facts with such an open ended question.

2007-05-25 22:18:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Actually a majority of those deaths are from insurgents killing their own countrymen.

Liberals are sooo good at taking responsiblity away from where it belongs and placing it on other sources as a means to create victims and push agendas.

U.S. SOLDIERS ARE NOT THE ONES TELLING THESE PEOPLE TO STRAP BOMBS TO CHILDREN AND THEMSELVES AND KILL #) PEOPLE IN A MARKETPLACE.

YOU IDIOT

2007-05-25 22:39:31 · answer #8 · answered by Voice of Liberty 5 · 3 1

If you want to believe only one side of the story.

2007-05-25 22:18:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

did michael moore give you those numbers

2007-05-25 22:29:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers