Democrats & Liberals Archives

Human Lives - Collateral Damage to A Political Calculus

The Democrats caved in and supported the supplemental occupation funding demanded by the Bush Cabal. The arguments apparently being that they a) didn’t have the votes to overcome a veto; b) they didn’t want to be blamed for the growing death and chaos; c) the belief this keeps Iraq the Republican’s adventure; d) perhaps - because the PSAs haven’t been signed yet.

Regardless, the considerations were political - not moral - not responsive to the mandate that the November elections sent. The arguments now are that they can revisit the funding issue in September - 4 months from now - 122 days from June 1 to September 31. Given a rough average death toll of five US troops and 50 Iraqi civilians, that makes a low estimate of 6710 (610 US troops, 6100 Iraqi civilians) deaths for buckling on the funding.

Six thousand seven hundred and ten lives for a failure of will.

Six thousand seven hundred and ten lives for vested corporate interests.

Six thousand seven hundred and ten lives for a coward's political strategy.

Damn the Democrats, and damn the Republicans. Their gamesmanship is being paid for in the blood of others. How dare they do this? How dare we let them do this?

This is NOT a war. It is an OCCUPATION. It is a bloody occupation to be sure, but an occupation all the same.

Once more the Bush Folk are talking about regime change - this time to clean the militia influence (Al-Sadar) out of the Iraqi Parliament. How exactly are they planning the removal of a democratically elected block of another government? Who is in charge? Is there even the illusion that the Iraqi government is independent to the U.S.?

Six thousand seven hundred and ten lives (and likely far more) as collateral damage for a political calculus that is doomed to fail no matter what.

Posted by Rowan Wolf at May 26, 2007 10:20 PM
Comments
Comment #221386

Since you have such a good ability to predict, how many Iraqi civilians do you think would die in the next four months if U.S. troops pulled out tomorrow?

Posted by: Jack at May 26, 2007 10:34 PM
Comment #221388

>>Since you have such a good ability to predict, how many Iraqi civilians do you think would die in the next four months if U.S. troops pulled out tomorrow?

Posted by: Jack at May 26, 2007 10:34 PM

Jack,

We have already been responsible for more Iraqi deaths since our invasion, than Saddam had during the preceding twenty years. Please help us allow the new ‘democratic’ government do what they will have to do sooner or later. So far, all the lives lost and injuries suffered since our ignoble invasion have been American responsibility. The only answer is to pull out now…it is the honorable thing to do after a less than honorable invasion.

You raise the same questions, in the same verbaige that were used in ‘65,’66, ‘67, ‘68, ‘69,’70, ‘71’ ‘72, etc. Our nationalo losses increased from less than 2,000 to over 55,000, the numbers of Viet Namese lives lost were just plain staggering.

We have thumped our chest, made excuses and played the patriot card long enough…why is that so hard for you to understand???

Posted by: Marysdude at May 26, 2007 11:04 PM
Comment #221391

Al-Sadr just gave an address in Najaf, issuing a fatwa forbidding Shias from killing Sunnis. Incredibly, he gave his address while wearing his funeral shroud. Only hours before, British troops killed his top deputy in Basra.

The fact is, Al-Sadr is the best hope for Iraq. Hakim, the head of SCII, the chosen faction for both the US & Iran, has lung cancer. He is out of the picture. Talabani, the leader of Dawa, is going to spend several weeks on a fat farm in Minnesota. The top Sunni leader in the Maliki government was assassinated (possibly for his support of the bill handing over Iraqi oil reserves to US/British/Dutch oil companies).

Al-Sadr is the best hope for Iraq. He is the leader who has risen above the maelstrom of the Iraqi debacle. Saddam Hussein died hearing the crowd chant “Muqtada Al-Sadr”.

There is just one problem: Al-Sadr is a nationalist. He is unwilling to see his country hand over its oil reserves to the US. He detests the idea of Iraq being an American colony, its resources plundered by US multinations.

How very, very inconvenient for us.

We do not want to admit it, but the fact is, the vast majority of Iraqis do not want the US occupying their country. Furthermore, the Iraqis do not want to sign the legislation giving away the rights to their oil reserves.

Even worse, the Kurds now have the unmitigated audacity to negotiate an oil agreement with Norwegian and Turkish companies. The nerve of those people! The gall! Cheney insists the agreement will be illegal.

Meanwhile, Iraqis continue fleeing the country at the rate of 50,000 per month. There are now two million Iraqi refugees. As the surge continues, the violence escalates, by any measure anyone cares to name.

Anyway, here is a prediction:

The Iraqis will be better off when the US leaves. The bloodshed and the violence will abate.

The Iraqis will stop blowing up their oil pipelines, which they are currently doing in order to spite the US. The current rate of production has dropped to just 1.6 million bpd. The oil will start to flow again once we leave, providing the country with funds to rebuild. The four main groups of the Sunni insurgency will begin participating in a new government, albeit one which is an Islamic fundamentalist government, fundamentally unfriendly to the US.

All this is obvious.

The US does not offer Iraqis a solution. The US occupation is the problem.

The sooner we leave, the better off everyone will be.

Posted by: phx8 at May 26, 2007 11:42 PM
Comment #221392

Jack
What the Dems originaly proposed was not unreasonable. It left intact training and supply for the Iraqi security forces,a strike force to attack AlQueada,gard the embassy etc. It also set realistic goals for the Iraqis to meet.If you did not like that deal,you’ll hate the next. Bush would not even commit to ever withdrawing. That is not reasonable.That was politics at best,at worst that was more evidence of oil company/opec collusion paid for with blood.

Rowan
Yes it was a sad day. It was also political reality. There is not enough public support for a rapid withdrawel even though most Americans believe the war is wrong. We need to convince them. The Dems will be the vehicle to get us out.There is no other viable alternative.There is already a reaction from the Whitehouse. They realize they no longer have a blank check.for endless occupation.This is because of the Dems in congress and for no other reason.Rather than teeth gnashing may I suggest you get involved in the local party committee.You will be welcome.

Posted by: BillS at May 26, 2007 11:54 PM
Comment #221393

Marys

You are counting in an interesting way. Would you attribute all the deaths of WWII to the British & French for opposing Hitler? He had not invaded their countries when they declared war on him.

Before the war with Saddam, the same guys now making high estimates of deaths, were making similar high estimates of deaths from sanctions. Saddam’s war with Iran cost maybe a million lives. I do not know off hand how many died in Gulf War, or how many Kurds he gassed, starved or shot. We really cannot count how many Marsh Arabs died when Saddam drained the marshes and destroyed the ecology of the region.

We may soon see how many more die if the U.S. pulls out of Iraq. After we left IndoChina, many millions died, many others fled in small boats and others ended up in reeducation camps. Vietnam has yet to hold a free election. We just stopped watching after the fall.

I do not think anybody really believes the killing will not get worse when/if the U.S. pulls out. Perhaps, as in IndoChina, we just will not pay attention anymore. That will make it all okay.

The world will stop paying attention. Without the U.S. to blame, the world spotlight will focus someplace else.

Posted by: Jack at May 27, 2007 12:08 AM
Comment #221395

Jack-
The trouble here and back in Vietnam relates to how much real control we have over the situation. We’ve skewered the hornet’s nest, sent all the bugs swarming and stinging those around. We keep on swatting around, claiming that our swatting is necessary to keep more from getting stung. Reality is, though, we don’t have enough hands in Iraq to swat all the hornets, and never did. It’s not letting Iraq go out of our control. It’s admitting we didn’t have control in the first place, never got it sufficiently as the war wore on (as evidenced by the descent into civil war) and removing ourselves as a part of this problem. Things could get worse with us gone, but they’ve gotten worse while we’ve been there despite our best intentions.

The real question is, are we helping? The surge is not showing the hoped-for results. The Iraqi people are not magically becoming united. I can live with soldiers dying in a war, but I expect that their sacrifice pays the bill for success more than failure.

All too many have paid that price without this government having its goals and its means clear for bring its promises about.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 27, 2007 12:43 AM
Comment #221396

Jack,
You confuse “terrorists” with “insurgents”.

President Bush consistently encourages the American people to make the same mistake.

The fact is, what we think of as “terrorists,” the group Al Qaida in Iraq, constitutes about two to three percent of the insurgents. The only faction in the fighting more unpopular than America is Al Qaida in Iraq. The Iraqis really, really dislike the suicide bombers & foreign jihadists, who inflict a disproportionate amount of the carnage.

Nothing will change the inevitable arc of events. Iraq will eventually become a fundamentalist Islamic state. And when they achieve self-determination & true sovereignty, it will not include permanent American bases on their soil, or virtual ownership of the resources by Coalition multinationals. It will mean a horrendous attitude towards the rights of women, which is a matter of Islamic culture. Women were far, far better off under the secular government of Saddam Hussein.

Correction: the declaration that Kurdish agreements with Norwegian & Turkish oil companies was made by the Iraqi oil minister, not Cheney.

There are so many factions & tribal rivalries that it will, undoubtedly, take a long time for the Iraqis to completely quell the violence. There is nothing an American presence can do, one way or another, to affect the conflict between the Turks & the Kurds. But without an American presence, Al Qaida in Iraq will find itself opposed by the largest insurgent group, the ex-Baathists under al-Duri. Other groups, such as the 1920 Revolutionary Brigades, will also target Al Qaida in Iraq & the foreign jihadists (who are NOT the same as the Al Qaida of Osama bin Laden).

How long will it take for the two million refugees to return to Iraq? Who knows?

In a poll taken by the Opinion Research Bureau, Iraqis do not believe things will become worse if the US leaves.

If you will not listen to anyone else, listen to Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. He refuses to buy into the Neocon mythology, and makes a lot of sense.

Posted by: phx8 at May 27, 2007 1:03 AM
Comment #221401

Jack, you are looking at the outcome of redeployment and mission redefinition with a jaundiced eye.

Yes, it is extremely likely that the rate of death in Iraq from Sunni/Shia battles will increase for a short time. But, there is no evidence whatsoever that the rate would NOT drop off as fast as it accelerated. Additionally, what difference does it make if 10,000 die in one year, or 10,000 die over the course of 5 years. 10,000 will still be dead.

If we stay, the death rate will be lower but protracted over years as the last 4 years demonstrates. If we redefine the mission and withdraw from the sectarian war, many will die in a short period, but, resolution to the sectarian war may occur in just one year and end the civil conflict for posterity.

No one can say which would cost more lives. The crystal ball has not been invented that can make even an educated guess on those two outcomes. But, this much has been established by the President, the Intelligence Community, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as analysts from both sides of the aisle: Resolution to the Iraqi conflicts cannot be obtained through a military solution. Ultimately the conflicts will end with a political resolution adopted by the Iraqi Government and their people.

Therefore, the only logical argument is that since we CANNOT say that our involvement in the Sectarian war will have a net saving of lives, we must plan and act to give the Iraqi government the responsibility for finding their political solution over their own civil war and the responsibility for ending their own violence. That can only be accomplished by removing our occupation forces from the middle of their civil war. Their civil war is not theirs to resolve as long as we are occupying the role of fanner of the flames of that war.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 27, 2007 1:49 AM
Comment #221410

Jack,

Are you seriously comparing our dishonorable invasions of sovereign nations, under false pretenses, i.e., Viet Nam and Iraq, to WWII?

Posted by: Marysdude at May 27, 2007 10:22 AM
Comment #221413

Marysdude
I was not aware we invaded Vietnam. I thought we were defending S. Vietnam against invasion from N. Vietnam. Am I wrong?

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not a sovereign nation under just war theory as he committed many, many violations of human rights. If our purpose for going into Iraq was freeing the Iraqis from tyranny we would be completely justified.

Posted by: Silima at May 27, 2007 12:56 PM
Comment #221415

Stephen

We do not know if the surge will show results. It is like planted a seed today and declaring failure because you do not have a flower tomorrow. Many of the new units are not even in place yet.

Phx8

We may well get to test your theory. If the U.S. pulls out, we can see what happens.

The terrorist make a small % of the total, but they are the nastiest. Their goal is chaos. Iraqis are beginning to fight Al Queda in Iraq. This is a good thing. It might be a good idea for us to support them rather than run out on them.

David

Indeed I do not know how many more will die if we pull out. What I am against is the sophomoric assuption (made by others not you) that we can just take our ball and go home and all will be over.

Even in the best case scenario, we have a wolf by the ears.

Marys

Silima is right. We did not invade Vietnam. We tried unsuccessfully to stop an invasion of the south by the north. It was more like Korea than WWII, but we did not invade a sovereign country. Iraq is a more complicated case, but do you assume every dictator is the legitimate ruler of the people he terrorizes?

Re WWII in general, I was making the analogy of the British and French. They fought the Nazis because Hitler invaded Poland. At the time, Hitler had not attacked them. They did the right thing, but when you imply that all the deaths in Iraq are the result of U.S. action, you are making the same argument that one could make that the Brits and the French, by resisting Nazi agression, created death.


Posted by: Jack at May 27, 2007 2:07 PM
Comment #221417

I felt the Democrats caved a bit too soon. Looke like they get another shot in Septemberbut I expect things to be a lot worse by then too.

Posted by: [url=http://www.politicsforumpoliticalworld.com/]political forum[/url] at May 27, 2007 5:06 PM
Comment #221420

Silima,
“I was not aware we invaded Vietnam. I thought we were defending S. Vietnam against invasion from N. Vietnam. Am I wrong?”

Yes, you are wrong. Vietnam was a unified country under French colonial rule. The French were expelled after a long war culminated in French defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The Vietnamese resistance which defeated the French was primarily communist, with backing from the USSR and China. These Vietnamese would have won a democratic election, so the country was arbitrarily divided into North and South, to avoid communist rule. The US manufacturd the Gulf of Tonkin incident, sent troops, and launched large scale attacks on the North.

One of the primary causes of the US defeat was our confusion about who we were fighting, and why they fought us. From the US point of view, it was all about fighting communists. From the Vietnamese point of view, it was not just about communism- it was about nationalism, and expelling what seemed to them to be just another colonial invader.

We tend to make the same kind of mistake in Iraq. If you listen to the Bush administration, everyone resisting us is a terrorist. Unfortunately, most of the Iraqis fighting agaist the US are not terrorists, but a complex mixture of nationalists, groups engaged in ethnic & tribal rivalies, religios fundamentalists, and so on.

To paraphrase the comments of one Iraqi:

Our situation is tragic. One side is demanding I join them, or be killed. But another side will kill me if I join. And the worst part of all is that there are more than two sides.

Jack,
It is a good thing that some Sunni groups are turning on Al Qaida in Iraq. Unfortunately, it does not mean they are taking our side. The tribal sheiks in charge of Fallujah are one example. They may (?) have turned on Al Qaida in Iraq, but westerners would be out of their minds to walk the city streets.

Posted by: phx8 at May 27, 2007 6:26 PM
Comment #221421

Coming back to the original article…

As disappointing as the Democratic cave-in on the bill has been, it is already having the desired effect. First, it did push through some legislation which had been bottled up in committee by Republicans, including the minimum wage increase. Just because 80% if Americans favor the increase does not mean the Republicans in Congress could not keep it bottled up. Second, the Democratic strategy appears to be doing what Reid and Pelosi claim; it is driving the national discussion towards a realistic strategy for withdrawal, and September seems like the likely time to finally force congressional Republicans to face the truth.

It is a bitter pill to swallow. But the debate pushes the country in the right direction.

Posted by: phx8 at May 27, 2007 6:54 PM
Comment #221425

Rowan:
“The arguments apparently being that they a) didn’t have the votes to overcome a veto;”

Which is clearly an excuse, since so many so-called “Democrats” actually voted FOR the bill.

“b) they didn’t want to be blamed for the growing death and chaos;”

Yet, they can now be blamed for not doing their best to try and stop the ever-growing and utterly senseless death and chaos that is Iraq. Democrats should have kept sending back the exact same spending bill with the timetables intact. This way, if the president wanted to keep the troops funded, it would have been laid squarely on HIS shoulders to make sure they have whatever they need, and entirely his idea to keep his idiotic war going. Had they done this, the pressure for Bush to end the Iraq war would have continued to build. Instead, Bushco got everything they wanted, and there is no pressure on them to defend this senseless Iraqi debacle that they’ve created.

c) the belief this keeps Iraq the Republican’s adventure;

Yet instead, it now also belongs to each and everyone of those voted FOR the bill as well — including a great many so-called “Democrats”. Their yea votes have made it so.

“Regardless, the considerations were political - not moral - not responsive to the mandate that the November elections sent.”

Yes. It was weakness and fear of the rightwing slime machine during the Memorial Day weekend that made them cave in to the wishes of the administration and the GOP yet again. And this pathetic and ridiculous terror of their slime machine is the very thing that keeps defeating the Democratic Party time and time again. Rather than grow a spine and realize that the majority of people in this country are supportive of everything and anything that can be done to stop the war, they tucked their tails between their legs and rolled over on their backs, to allow the idiotic, bullying GOP to appear the top dogs over the country, yet again.

“The arguments now are that they can revisit the funding issue in September - 4 months from now - 122 days from June 1 to September 31.”

As brilliant, bold and fearless Democratic Leader, Sen. Russ Feingold just said:

You know what’s going to happen in September? They’ll bring General Petraeus back and he’ll say, ‘Just give me until the end of year. I think things are turning around’. And then we’ll be out of session, come back in late January, February, and the fact is a thousand more troops will lose their lives in a situation that doesn’t make any sense and it is hurting our military, hurting our country. This should not wait till September.

And of course he’s absolutely, positively, 100% correct that that’s the way it will be. Too bad that so many spineless, cowering Democrats don’t listen to Feingold, or support the things he says and does. If they did try to emulate him, they’d risk gaining the respect of the majority of the people in their party — as well many other voters in this nation. Instead, they’re too busy being afraid of what the GOP slime machine will say next, so it’s so much easier to denigrate anyone who is upset with their actions as being “Far-Left-Loonies” or “The Liberal Nutroots”.

“Given a rough average death toll of five US troops and 50 Iraqi civilians, that makes a low estimate of 6710 (610 US troops, 6100 Iraqi civilians) deaths for buckling on the funding.”

If only we could send every “Democrat” who voted Yea on this spending bill over to Iraq without any bodyguards whatsoever. No doubt within a week we’d need to vote in a whole new crop of Democratic representatives — ones who are bold and fearless enough to actually stand up for our troops, our country, and our collective Liberal principles.

BTW, if any of you wish to thank the REAL Democrats who had enough strength and conviction to vote NO on this spending bill, here is a link where you can give them the sincere appreciation they deserve.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 27, 2007 9:38 PM
Comment #221426

phx8:
“it did push through some legislation which had been bottled up in committee by Republicans, including the minimum wage increase.”

Yeah, but I can’t help but think of this as Minimum Wage for Maximum Blood.

Posted by: Adrienne at May 27, 2007 9:41 PM
Comment #221427

Adrienne,
Yes, I know, it was a bitter pill to swallow. I thought the Democrats should have sent the same bill to Bush one more time. But they did not. I am pleased my Senator, Ron Wyden, and my Representative voted against it. Reid complains the Democrats lacked the votes. Well, maybe so. That does not change the fact that the Democrats have to show some spine, and stand up.

I am not as angry now. But I have not forgotten, not by any means.

Posted by: phx8 at May 27, 2007 10:07 PM
Comment #221430

Jack
You are being disingenious. After we left Indo-China there were indeed millions killed but not by the forces we were fighting. PolPots riegn of terror was finally put down by the people we called the enemy. His rise may well have come about because of the instability we created by dropping huge amounts of ordinance on Cambodia.
Vietnam is a poor country made poorer by the systematic destruction of its infrastrucure. You still see dirt roads next to what was once a highway but is now a series of rainfilled bomb craters. The Vietnamese still suffer from the effect of agent orange and unexploded ordinance. Have they had a free election? No and they should. So should Saudi Arabia,Pakistan,Kuwait,UAE and Florida.Our involvement in Vietnam was another reckless,foolish piece of colonial adventurism and no good came of it as no good will come from our involvement in Iraq.

Posted by: BillS at May 27, 2007 11:31 PM
Comment #221431

Jack
After that I owe you one.
I saw a cartoon you would like. It shows an aid standing in front of Bush at his desk. The aid says”President Carter called this the worst administration in history. This is his thank you note.”

Posted by: Bills at May 27, 2007 11:41 PM
Comment #221432

>>I was not aware we invaded Vietnam. I thought we were defending S. Vietnam against invasion from N. Vietnam. Am I wrong?

Posted by: Silima at May 27, 2007 12:56 PM

Silima,

I think so.

To my recolection Viet Nam began much the same as Iraq. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, was based on a fabricated story of one of our ships, in international waters, being attacked by the North Viet Namese navy, which fired on us.

It was determined by our own intelligence that the largest craft within attack distance to our fleet were about the size of our own WWII PT Boats, and there were only about eight of them in servicable condition, and they DID NOT attack us. Thus the prevarication which led to our dishonorable bombardment of a sovereign nation. A nation that had done us no harm. In other words, we have little cradibility in the world, and are squandering the little we have left.

Before you whip one of those, ‘traiter’, ‘coward’, or ‘unpatriotic’ raps on me…I spent two and a half tours in Nam, ‘64/65, ‘67/68 and ‘70/71. I’ll let you guess why my third tour was only seven months long (hint…one of my legs is gone at mid-thigh).


Posted by: Marysdude at May 28, 2007 12:18 AM
Comment #221439

For all of you who have served….thank you!

http://www.peacetakescourage.com/index2.php?subaction=showcomments&id=1180284190&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&page=blog

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at May 28, 2007 2:27 AM
Comment #221446

Jack,

Re WWII in general, I was making the analogy of the British and French. They fought the Nazis because Hitler invaded Poland. At the time, Hitler had not attacked them.

The only non-defensive move made by British and French against Nazis was the french short Saar offensive. It was too little too late.

Only when Hitler invaded France they actually fight back enough. With the outcome we know. It was too little too late there too.

They did the right thing, but when you imply that all the deaths in Iraq are the result of U.S. action, you are making the same argument that one could make that the Brits and the French, by resisting Nazi agression, created death.

Except that the agressor was Hitler, the defendors the Brits and French. In Iraq, the agressor is US, the *defendors* the insurgents. Show me again where Saddam actually invaded the US…

The first agressor always own the responsability of casualties his decision created. He made the decision to go war. He own it. Iraq War is US’s. It could have been avoided. It was not by Bush only decision. US can’t avoid its responsability in *starting* (not entering, like in previous wars) this war.

Being the first agressor, that’s the legit weakness in pre-emptive doctrine. In particular when the reason behind the pre-emption are unfunded not founds, like immediatly threatfull WMDs.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 28, 2007 8:51 AM
Comment #221448

Silima,

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not a sovereign nation under just war theory as he committed many, many violations of human rights. If our purpose for going into Iraq was freeing the Iraqis from tyranny we would be completely justified.

You say this as if it was not the Bush’s purpose for going into Iraq!?!
Maybe you’re right. He gave so many purposes that, like you, he lost me on his reasons behind Iraq War. Not a surprise, as he seems very good to lose people.

Unfortunatly, it included people’s life too.

PS: since when Bush care about human rights violations?!?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 28, 2007 9:33 AM
Comment #221456

The past can certainly be prologue. While history doesn’t necessarily exactly repeat itself, it certainly rhymes with itself. As such, while the numerical projections given by Rowan Wolf are almost certainly wrong in an exact sense, they are reasonable estimates, in the absence of quantum changes in tactics and strategies on the insurgents’ part. By repeating our same policies, we should expect more of the same; it’s the old “definition of insanity” notion.

What puzzles me is this: If people tend to do what works, why is the Bush administration repeating the same policy? On what level is this working for them?

Posted by: Chazz at May 28, 2007 11:47 AM
Comment #221458

Chazz,

That’s easy.
What matter is this Commander in Chief should not have to recognize his war is a failure. On that level, his repeated “stay the course” policy is working. For him.

Who care it’s not for everything else?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 28, 2007 12:31 PM
Comment #221461

Philippe:

Do you believe “they” (the Bush administration) think their policy is working right now, or do you think they have faith in “the ultimate in delayed gratification”?

Posted by: Chazz at May 28, 2007 2:20 PM
Comment #221533

I think “they” don’t care that much except for escaping their responsabilities as much as possible, as late as possible, the better being none and never.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at May 29, 2007 6:44 AM
Comment #245095


Marysdude

“We have already been responsible for more Iraqi deaths since our invasion, than Saddam had during the preceding twenty years.”

That’s a damnable lie. Gets your facts straight.

The UN just published a report that estimates the death toll to be about 150,000. that’s still one to many. Most of which were killed by Al Qeada and the so called “insurgents” but do you know how many Saddam killed??? Obviously not since you posted such a stupid accusation. The UN estimates Saddams death toll around 300,000 and still counting. they are still digging up mass graves from the 35 years his regime was in power. You liberals. I swear, facts don’t mean anything to you do they?

Posted by: Ray Ramirez at February 11, 2008 9:36 PM
Post a comment