[Old_Dude]

Does anyone know if & where there are accurate numbers indicating the number of Iraqis killed in the war.

It's obvious how many American's, Brit's, et cetera, were killed but I want to know how many men, women and children died or were hurt in the conflict.

Why do I wanna know? Why izzit important?

Tell me where the WMD are located and then come back and ask me why.

 

[quadricolour]

Iraqi civilian death count.

Not sure where to find one for soldiers, but I know it's already significantly higher than the first gulf war.

 

[jonassterling]

Originally posted by Old_Dude


Tell me where the WMD are located and then come back and ask me why.

I coulda sworn the Sec. of Defense(I say change this back to the Sec. of War) said he knew where they where, or we had intellegence that said where they were. And so did Powell and Rice, and Bush. If they know where they are why don't they tell the troops in Iraq?

 

[Old_Dude]

. . . If they know where they are why don't they tell the troops in Iraq?

My cousin is so pro-Bush, she thinks GOP stands for God's Own Party - pretty pathetic.

When I asked her where were all (or any) of the WMD she quickly blurted out her (apparantly pre-rehearsed) answer, saying they'd all been moved to Syria, Jordan or Saudi Arabia.



If I only had some ocean front property in Kansas to sell her . . .

Thanks for posting the link . . . over 6000 civilians . . . that's a lot of people . . . that's a lot of suffering . . . I wonder how many are permanently maimed by the war . . .

. . . it wouldn't surprise me if the US didn't find any WMD, they'd manufacture them . . . I think when the police do that they call it a "throw down" weapon . . .

 

[ghostrider]

Originally posted by jonassterling
I coulda sworn the Sec. of Defense(I say change this back to the Sec. of War) said he knew where they where, or we had intellegence that said where they were. And so did Powell and Rice, and Bush. If they know where they are why don't they tell the troops in Iraq?

The correct term is "Department of Offense"

 

[Tenchiro]

6000+ deaths, and I have never seen a single one reported by a mainstream american news organization...

 

[johnbryanpeters]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
6000+ deaths, and I have never seen a single one reported by a mainstream american news organization...

Crap.

Mainstream news published photos of a trailer truck load of dead men, women, and children at a Baghdad hospital, to cite one example I can think of.

j

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by johnbryanpeters
Crap.

Mainstream news published photos of a trailer truck load of dead men, women, and children at a Baghdad hospital, to cite one example I can think of.

j

Not saying they haven't just that I have never seen it. The only time I have seen anything was in Rolling Stone a couple fo months ago.

 

[BurlyShirley]

The wierd thing about Iraq is....no numbers can be accurate.


Ive heard stories about how one day, you're shooting at a guy, and the next, you see him on the side of the road yelling "I love Bush" Who knows what's a civilian and what's a combatant.


the website posted here has numbers significantly higher than estimates Ive seen so far.


Know though, that our enemy killed to US dudes killed ratio was very very good.

 

[zod]

*sarcasm on*

Yea it's too bad we haven't found any WMD. We shouldn't be there. Saddam should still be ruling today and practicing genocide on his own people.

*sarcasm off*

 

[manhattanprjkt83]

ANTI WAR PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK.

 

[jonassterling]

Originally posted by manhattanprjkt83
ANTI WAR PEOPLE MAKE ME SICK.

Aww, poor baby got a tummy ache?

I love blanket statements like this. If you have nothing more to ad to this discussion go back to living your nice little insular life.

Thanks

 

[strack]

Originally posted by zod
*sarcasm on*
Yea it's too bad we haven't found any WMD. We shouldn't be there. Saddam should still be ruling today and practicing genocide on his own people.
*sarcasm off*

I think even people who strongly oppose our "pre-emptive war" in Iraq would agree that Saddam and his sons were brutal leaders and lived the high life on the backs of their citizens. But, by most accounts, someone like Kim Jong-Il in N. Korea is more brutal and oppressive AND he openly is seeking WMD (specifically nucleur) capability, and with such capability could deliver such a weapon to the west coast of the U.S., yet the Bushies insist on "diplomacy" and having regional governments get involved there.

The U.S. action in Iraq was revenge by Dubya against the "man who tried to kill his daddy". Saddam posed no direct threat to the mainland U.S. and no serious threat to U.S. interests, even in the Middle East.

If it was just to remove a bad leader, why not North Korea? Liberia? Might does not make right.

 

[manhattanprjkt83]

Nope, I have a ton to add, i just dont feel like spending my whole workday typing up a theisis on why i feel the iraq war is justified and how we should support the troops for doing what they do.

 

[zod]

No doubt Kim Jong is a freakin' maniac.......... I think we're being diplomatic just long enough to get everything in place for a stick fight. I hope we occupy N. Korea next.

I could care less if he was cleaning up daddies mess, Saddam is out of power and that works for me.

 

[manhattanprjkt83]

rock on ZOD

 

[jonassterling]

Originally posted by manhattanprjkt83
Nope, I have a ton to add, i just dont feel like spending my whole workday typing up a theisis on why i feel the iraq war is justified and how we should support the troops for doing what they do.

Who ever said anyhing about the troops?

I have 2 brothers in the Army and spent time in the Army myself(11B). So get your facts straight before posting.

 

[llkoolkeg]

...irregular troops and urban guerillas in civvies assassinating U.S. soldiers, you bring it upon yourself. Too many Darwin Award competitors over there to count. I know if somebody was occupying my country, I wouldn't be so stupid as to run towards armed soldiers, throw rocks or do anything that could even remotely be construed as provoking or aggressive. Not to say that some accidents haven't occurred, but like I said- war's a bitch. What the fvck do you think happens during armed conflicts? Pinochle tournaments?

 

[jonassterling]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
...irregular troops and urban guerillas in civvies assassinating U.S. soldiers, you bring it upon yourself. Too many Darwin Award competitors over there to count. I know if somebody was occupying my country, I wouldn't be so stupid as to run towards armed soldiers, throw rocks or do anything that could even remotely be construed as provoking or aggressive. Not to say that some accidents haven't occurred, but like I said- war's a bitch. What the fvck do you think happens during armed conflicts? Pinochle tournaments?

So, extending your logic to apply to an invasion of the US, if the occupying troops are attacked by the Michigan Militia, they have a right to kill civilians that are uninvolved in the attacks?

 

[ghostrider]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
...irregular troops and urban guerillas in civvies assassinating U.S. soldiers, you bring it upon yourself. Too many Darwin Award competitors over there to count. I know if somebody was occupying my country, I wouldn't be so stupid as to run towards armed soldiers, throw rocks or do anything that could even remotely be construed as provoking or aggressive. Not to say that some accidents haven't occurred, but like I said- war's a bitch. What the fvck do you think happens during armed conflicts? Pinochle tournaments?

Your logic just doesn't work. If somebody "occupied" this country, and you are the American you probably claim to be, you would do whatever you could to get rid of them, regardless of who they are.

Besides, you can't start a fight, do a bunch of bad things, then say "oh well, that's what happens when you get in a fight."

Very simply, killing people to save lives is faulty logic. Starting a war in the name of peace is faulty logic - if you don't agree, you just aren't thinking.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by jonassterling
So, extending your logic to apply to an invasion of the US, if the occupying troops are attacked by the Michigan Militia, they have a right to kill civilians that are uninvolved in the attacks?

I'm not saying they have a right to, but I wouldn't be shocked if it happened. Do you suggest that is what's deliberately being done in Iraq? What I propose is that in a highly destabilized environment, you stay in your home as much as possible and try to avoid the occupying force.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by ghostrider
Your logic just doesn't work. If somebody "occupied" this country, and you are the American you probably claim to be, you would do whatever you could to get rid of them, regardless of who they are.

Besides, you can't start a fight, do a bunch of bad things, then say "oh well, that's what happens when you get in a fight."

Very simply, killing people to save lives is faulty logic. Starting a war in the name of peace is faulty logic - if you don't agree, you just aren't thinking.

Wrong. My reaction is based on my circumstances. As a husband and father, I do whatever is necessary to protect my family, avoidance being the first line of defense. As a young, single hotblood- you got it...I engage the occupying force with guerilla tactics.

As for the "faulty logic", I would suggest that it is not faulty but perhaps over your head. The words may seem to be in conflict but the reality behind them is not. To secure peace you must prepare for war. Thugs, be they on an individual or international level, attempt to pray on those they consider weaker than themselves. Compare the total Iraqi casualties of this conflict, civilian and military, to the total number of just unarmed civilians killed by Saddam and his regime. Now tell me my logic is flawed.

 

[jonassterling]

Ok first off, what's up with quoting Ghandi
in you sig than spouting off about justified war? He was a huge proponent of peaceful and non-violent action.

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
"I'm not saying they have a right to, but I wouldn't be shocked if it happened. Do you suggest that is what's deliberately being done in Iraq? What I propose is that in a highly destabilized environment, you stay in your home as much as possible and try to avoid the occupying force."

No I'm not suggesting we are deliberatly targeting cicilians, it seemed you were ok with civilian deaths as retribution for attacks on our troops. I see now that is not what was being said.

I want you and anyone else reading this that I am not a complete pacifist. Some force is neccisary in some situations. I don't think Iraq was one of them. As seen in the past when Isreal bombed Iraq's nuke project, Isreal should know if Iraq is a threat, and their intelligence did not say they were.

If this was all about freeing the Iraqi people, why in the fvck are we not in Liberia? There is a dictator who has offered to step down with the arrival of a force of international troops. Taylor even has a country willing to take him. But we are hemming and hawwing while rebels and Taylors forces blow the crap out of each other and plenty of civilians.

And North Korea. They are playing the brinkmanship game and have nukes. We are not going to attack that country, they are supported by China, and if it is one country in the world we should not mess with it is China.

And anyway do you really think we can get any nation made up of warring tribes of people to get all happy and democratic by bombing their major cities into rubble?

If I was an Iraqi, even one that supported regime change I would not be giving up my Ak just yet.

 

[manhattanprjkt83]

-------------------------As seen in the past when Isreal bombed Iraq's nuke project, Isreal should know if Iraq is a threat, and their intelligence did not say they were.---------------------------------------------



Yeah man we will decide the fate of the world based on Isreal's inteligence, that will get us real far. That is why all the countries have soo many problems lack of knowledge

 

[jonassterling]

Originally posted by manhattanprjkt83
-------------------------As seen in the past when Isreal bombed Iraq's nuke project, Isreal should know if Iraq is a threat, and their intelligence did not say they were.---------------------------------------------



Yeah man we will decide the fate of the world based on Isreal's inteligence, that will get us real far. That is why all the countries have soo many problems lack of knowledge

Could you explain this last statement, I'm not sure what you are saying. In all seriousness, I'm just trying to understand, I'm not being sarcastic.

 

[llkoolkeg]

"Ok first off, what's up with quoting Ghandi
in you sig than spouting off about justified war? He was a huge proponent of peaceful and non-violent action."

I am aware of who Mohandas K. Gandhi was and what he stood for. No matter what the source, I take what lessons I deem valuable and reject that which I do not believe/support. I do not accept everything anyone says as the Gospel. Nonviolence was the best card Gandhi could play to achieve his goals in his particular situation. Brilliant man, really. Had he been a proponent of violent resistance to achieve Indian independence, India and Pakistan would still be British colonies.

"No I'm not suggesting we are deliberatly targeting cicilians, it seemed you were ok with civilian deaths as retribution for attacks on our troops. I see now that is not what was being said."

Correct. Any deaths among noncombatants is a regrettable tragedy.

"I want you and anyone else reading this that I am not a complete pacifist. Some force is neccisary in some situations. I don't think Iraq was one of them. As seen in the past when Isreal bombed Iraq's nuke project, Isreal should know if Iraq is a threat, and their intelligence did not say they were."

The Isreali bombing of the Tammuz-1 reactor at Osiraq, Iraq was a sensible, calculated breach of international law as was the Mossad's assasination and intimidation of certain scientists working on it.

"If this was all about freeing the Iraqi people, why in the fvck are we not in Liberia? There is a dictator who has offered to step down with the arrival of a force of international troops. Taylor even has a country willing to take him. But we are hemming and hawwing while rebels and Taylors forces blow the crap out of each other and plenty of civilians."

Freeing the Iraqi people was but a happy sidebar to protecting American interests and reducing a regional destabilizing factor...Saddam and his regime. We have no strategic interest in Liberia. There are other diamond mines in Africa and elsewhere.

"And North Korea. They are playing the brinkmanship game and have nukes. We are not going to attack that country, they are supported by China, and if it is one country in the world we should not mess with it is China."

Yes but delivering said nukes is N. Korea's biggest problem. Who knows though. Perhaps JPL out in CA has managed to fumble the ball into N. Korea's hands as they did with China. As you point out, we are not in a position to confront Kim Jong Il strategically. We should strangle him with our economic power as we did the USSR.

"And anyway do you really think we can get any nation made up of warring tribes of people to get all happy and democratic by bombing their major cities into rubble?"

Good point. That apparently didn't work in Germany.

"If I was an Iraqi, even one that supported regime change I would not be giving up my Ak just yet."

Then you are wise. I won't give mine up here, much less if I lived in Iraq.

 

[ohio]

I'm with you jonas, but gone are the days when consistency and precedent are actually important. We have the power as a nation now to justify everything on a case by case basis without repercussions, and it seems whoever is in power will manipulate that to their own ends.

 

[ghostrider]

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
As for the "faulty logic", I would suggest that it is not faulty but perhaps over your head. The words may seem to be in conflict but the reality behind them is not. To secure peace you must prepare for war. Thugs, be they on an individual or international level, attempt to pray on those they consider weaker than themselves. Compare the total Iraqi casualties of this conflict, civilian and military, to the total number of just unarmed civilians killed by Saddam and his regime. Now tell me my logic is flawed.

llkoolkeg, I think part of what is going on here is I am trying to debate this from a philosophical perspective while you are trying to debate if from a factual perspective. I am not going to try to debate it from a factual perspective because I don't beleive I have the facts, and I don't think it is even possible for me to get them. If you are arrogant enough to believe you actually know the facts on this issue, I think you may want to reconsider. What you really have is your own personal perception of the information and misinformation that is available to you, which very likely is not reality. Same for me.

So, my point is, one dead person equals one dead person, from the dead person's perspective (or even from the dead person's father's perspective, since you brought it up). So, I ask you, philosophically, how many children is it ok to kill by mistake, or as a "regrettable tragedy" and still be justifiable? Seriously. Is it one? One hundred? One thousand? At what point is it unnecessary or unjustifiable murder? I think the answer is pretty damn close to one. Think about it, if my daughter is killed, by my mistake, an terrible accident, a terrorist, a murderer, or a liberating army here to make a regime change (and let's say I do want one since I can't stand the current regime) do you think my heart is any less broken in any of those cases? Is there anything that will bring her back? Will I find solace in the fact that she died for the sake of the regime change, or the fact that it was just a "regrettable tragedy". The only difference is who I get to blame, and who I get to hate. Hate causes violence. War is violence. War causes hate. War is not the answer. Philosophically speaking.

 

[jonassterling]

"I am aware of who Mohandas K. Gandhi was and what he stood for. No matter what the source, I take what lessons I deem valuable and reject that which I do not believe/support. I do not accept everything anyone says as the Gospel. "

I agree, sorry about my attack, I was out of line


"I want you and anyone else reading this that I am not a complete pacifist. Some force is neccisary in some situations. I don't think Iraq was one of them. As seen in the past when Isreal bombed Iraq's nuke project, Isreal should know if Iraq is a threat, and their intelligence did not say they were."

"The Isreali bombing of the Tammuz-1 reactor at Osiraq, Iraq was a sensible, calculated breach of international law as was the Mossad's assasination and intimidation of certain scientists working on it."

If this was a breach of international law, and Iraq was in breach of international law, and we are in breach of international law, who has the moral high-ground, and what good in international law?


"Freeing the Iraqi people was but a happy sidebar to protecting American interests and reducing a regional destabilizing factor...Saddam and his regime. We have no strategic interest in Liberia. There are other diamond mines in Africa and elsewhere."

I'm glad to see you being so frank about this, now if only Bush would be.


"And anyway do you really think we can get any nation made up of warring tribes of people to get all happy and democratic by bombing their major cities into rubble?"

"Good point. That apparently didn't work in Germany."

A few problems here. Iraq is populated with people who are completly unfamiliar with Western style democracy. Germany was not. Germany was also a much more unified nation, unlike Iraq, with it's Sunies, ****ies, and the northen tribes. And the American public will not stand for this to take as long as it took for Germany to stabilize. We also can not afford to keep 150,000 troops there, and I think it will take more than that to get Iraq stabilized.

 

[zod]

I am sure we friendly fired a lot of Jews when we liberated Nazi Germany but it was worth it................
The same can be said for Iraq. Sure Iraq is not what Nazi Germany was. But in my eyes genocide is genocide.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Let's put GI loss of life in Iraq in a statistical context



Let's put GI loss of life in Iraq in a statistical context


Date published: 7/31/2003


Russia lost well over 3,000 dead every day in World War II--not counting civilian deaths--for about 47 months on average.

The French lost over 1,100 soldiers killed every day for over four years on average in World War I.

Great Britain lost 650 soldiers killed every day for over four years on average in World War I.

The United States lost 708 soldiers and Marines killed every day on average for the approximately 5 months of direct U.S. involvement in World War I.

The United States lost over 221 servicemen killed every day on average for the 44 months of World War II from Dec. 7, 1941, to August 1945.

Traffic accidents, according to year 2000 statistics, kill 116 people every day in America.

Suicides kill over 78 people every day in America.

Accidental poisonings kill 33 plus people every day in our country.

Accidental drownings kill nine people per day in America.

The war in Iraq has claimed, so far, between two and three American lives every day on average.

Eckel S. Davis

Spotsylvania

Date published: 7/31/2003

 

[ghostrider]

Good point. That apparently didn't work in Germany.[/B]

I think you are on to something here. Somebody needs to build a wall between northern and southern Iraq and leave it there long enough for the hatred and blame to dissipate.

 

[jonassterling]

Originally posted by zod
I am sure we friendly fired a lot of Jews when we liberated Nazi Germany but it was worth it................
The same can be said for Iraq. Sure Iraq is not what Nazi Germany was. But in my eyes genocide is genocide.

I doubt it unless we dropped bombs on the concentration camps. By wars end most Jews were in camps or in hiding.

Now if you would have said German civilians I would have agreed with you.

 

[llkoolkeg]

"llkoolkeg, I think part of what is going on here is I am trying to debate this from a philosophical perspective while you are trying to debate if from a factual perspective. I am not going to try to debate it from a factual perspective because I don't beleive I have the facts, and I don't think it is even possible for me to get them. If you are arrogant enough to believe you actually know the facts on this issue, I think you may want to reconsider. What you really have is your own personal perception of the information and misinformation that is available to you, which very likely is not reality. Same for me."

I am arrogant but agree to your ground rules.

"So, my point is, one dead person equals one dead person, from the dead person's perspective (or even from the dead person's father's perspective, since you brought it up). So, I ask you, philosophically, how many children is it ok to kill by mistake, or as a "regrettable tragedy" and still be justifiable? Seriously. Is it one? One hundred? One thousand? At what point is it unnecessary or unjustifiable murder? I think the answer is pretty damn close to one. Think about it, if my daughter is killed, by my mistake, an terrible accident, a terrorist, a murderer, or a liberating army here to make a regime change (and let's say I do want one since I can't stand the current regime) do you think my heart is any less broken in any of those cases? Is there anything that will bring her back? Will I find solace in the fact that she died for the sake of the regime change, or the fact that it was just a "regrettable tragedy". The only difference is who I get to blame, and who I get to hate. Hate causes violence. War is violence. War causes hate. War is not the answer. Philosophically speaking."

Philisophically, the answer is none. As you propose, what is at question is who is to blame. The US soldier who fired the rocket? The Ba'athist who used my home as a hiding place from where to throw grenades at the US soldier? The US government? Saddam Hussein? God? Myself for being just enough of a slackass to not afford a bigger home in a safer neighborhood? If something like that happened here and it was my daughter, I don't know what would happen. I've never had to face that kind of loss. Perhaps the loss would destroy my marriage, I would get drunk and throw myself off a cliff. Perhaps I would find the strength to start over again. Perhaps I would charge outside with my rifle in hand and get cut in half by a minigun. Who knows.

As for the hate-violence-war cycle, it's a chicken-or-the-egg situation. Philisophically, war is bad. Until we can find a way to live as a harmonious species, it will always exist. So long as war exists, we might as well be the best at it. It's no answer, for sure, but it's the only one I can comprehend. Secure that my family and I could exist peacefully and never be hurt by anyone else for any reason, I would beat my guns into plowshares. Until that day, I practice my marksmanship and keep my guns well-oiled, locked and loaded.

 

[zod]

Jonas, I disagree. MANY MANY Jews were in hiding in the cities that we carpet bombed. People like Anne Franck. I am sure our intelligence knew this and I am sure we killed many. HOWEVER the damage we did stopped the greater damage that Hitler was out to create. I feel the same can be said for Saddam. I feel the same can be said for the innocents we have killed in this conflict. That's not to say it's not wrong, but war never is right, it's just a sometimes neccesary evil/

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ghostrider
llkoolkeg, I think part of what is going on here is I am trying to debate this from a philosophical perspective while you are trying to debate if from a factual perspective. I am not going to try to debate it from a factual perspective because I don't beleive I have the facts, and I don't think it is even possible for me to get them. If you are arrogant enough to believe you actually know the facts on this issue, I think you may want to reconsider. What you really have is your own personal perception of the information and misinformation that is available to you, which very likely is not reality. Same for me.

So, my point is, one dead person equals one dead person, from the dead person's perspective (or even from the dead person's father's perspective, since you brought it up). So, I ask you, philosophically, how many children is it ok to kill by mistake, or as a "regrettable tragedy" and still be justifiable? Seriously. Is it one? One hundred? One thousand? At what point is it unnecessary or unjustifiable murder? I think the answer is pretty damn close to one. Think about it, if my daughter is killed, by my mistake, an terrible accident, a terrorist, a murderer, or a liberating army here to make a regime change (and let's say I do want one since I can't stand the current regime) do you think my heart is any less broken in any of those cases? Is there anything that will bring her back? Will I find solace in the fact that she died for the sake of the regime change, or the fact that it was just a "regrettable tragedy". The only difference is who I get to blame, and who I get to hate. Hate causes violence. War is violence. War causes hate. War is not the answer. Philosophically speaking.

So, to come to your conclusion, you first take the stance that you have no idea what's really going on, and then proceed to fill in the blanks with generic ideas about philosophy instead of actually trying to figure out the situation. Sounds like a winner to me.

 

[jonassterling]

Originally posted by zod
Jonas, I disagree. MANY MANY Jews were in hiding in the cities that we carpet bombed. People like Anne Franck. I am sure our intelligence knew this and I am sure we killed many. HOWEVER the damage we did stopped the greater damage that Hitler was out to create. I feel the same can be said for Saddam. I feel the same can be said for the innocents we have killed in this conflict. That's not to say it's not wrong, but war never is right, it's just a sometimes neccesary evil/

So are you saying this war was to end Saddam' reign?

If so I ask again why are we not in Liberia.

This freeing the Iraqis is a crock. Let's go free the Saudis, and the Chinese, and the North Koreans, and anyone else that is under an opressive regime.

We won't because we have no tactical, nor financial gain to be made by doing so.

Part of me was not opposed to the war in Iraq, but it is hard to make up your mind when the government LIES to you.

zod, you may be right about Jewish deaths from bombings in cities. I don't really know enough about.

 

[ghostrider]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
So, to come to your conclusion, you first take the stance that you have no idea what's really going on, and then proceed to fill in the blanks with generic ideas about philosophy instead of actually trying to figure out the situation. Sounds like a winner to me.

Oh, ok, you got me. I changed my mind. Let's go kill anybody we want as long as we think it is justifiable based on our own objectives and perception of the facts. Right. Sounds like something a terrorist would do.

 

[zod]

I'm not gonna argue that. I've been around the block long enough to know how this stuff works.
I think we should hit Lieria, N. Korea, etc. etc.

I don't deny that intentions were not financial, personal, or otherwise. But I unlike the rest of the world don't give a crap about all that stuff. All I care about is the fact that a known practitioner of genocide has been whiped out of power. That's good enough for me.

 

[jonassterling]

Originally posted by zod
I'm not gonna argue that. I've been around the block long enough to know how this stuff works.
I think we should hit Lieria, N. Korea, etc. etc.

I don't deny that intentions were not financial, personal, or otherwise. But I unlike the rest of the world don't give a crap about all that stuff. All I care about is the fact that a known practitioner of genocide has been whiped out of power. That's good enough for me.

OK. If that is the case, futher debate would be fruitless. Not saying this is a bad thing.

I'm just very upset that we are getting lied to. I wish we could get straight talk out of the gov't.