How Many Dead Iraqis?

Boedy · 02-25-2003, 05:09 PM

How many Iraqi civilians will die in Gulf War II? It's one of the most disturbing questions going into this battle the question that fills doves with passion and hawks with doubt so a few activists and analysts have tried to develop an answer. The most widely circulated one comes from a confidential report

by a U.N. humanitarian-aid specialist, which was leaked to a group in Cambridge, which in turn published it on the Internet. This report estimates that civilian casualties could total 500,000. Another much-cited public study by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, cites a figure of up to 100,000. If these calculations were even close to plausible, they would certainly strain many of the rationales for going to war, especially those that involve the liberation and welfare of the Iraqi people.

So, it's worth asking: How were these numbers computed? On what assumptions—especially about U.S. strategy, tactics, weapons, and targets are they based? There's an old phrase among those who work with computer models: "GIGO," for Garbage In/Garbage Out. Feed a computer silly assumptions; it spits out ridiculous numbers. Not to paint a rosy picture on the devastation wrought by any war, especially this one, which is likely to be fought partly in densely populated cities, but these numbers are textbook cases of GIGO. They're not so much wrong as they are completely useless.
The U.N. study, which was written last December (the author has not been revealed, though the document's authenticity has been confirmed), makes the following assumptions about the course of the war:

<ul type="square">[*]That U.S. and allied bombing will severely damage Iraq's electrical power plants, generators, and distribution networks, which will have a grave effect on the country's electrified water and sanitation systems[*]That the port of Umm Qasr will be disabled, thus blocking imports of vital supplies[*]That the country's railroad tracks, bridges, and key roads will be destroyed, disrupting internal travel, trade, and post-war aid[/list]
The International Physicians' report makes the same assumption: "The destruction of roads, railways, houses, hospitals, factories, and sewage plants will create conditions in which the environment is degraded and disease flourishes." These structures and networks were key targets in the 1991 Gulf War; they were bombarded heavily and repeatedly. As a result, according to several independent estimates, about 3,500 Iraqi civilians were killed during the war, and another 110,000 died from the after-effects on the country's health and sanitation system. In a similarly vein, the leaked U.N. study calculates that 100,000 civilians will die during the coming war, plus 400,000 after the war.

Here's the fallacy, though: In this war, the United States has no intention of attacking power plants, railways, or bridges—or not many, anyway. Several news stories (for example, click Here ) have said as much, but logic makes the same point.

First, this time around, the U.S. leadership seems genuinely interested in rebuilding Iraq after the war. It makes no sense, therefore, to bomb these kinds of targets, the repair of which would only make an already-difficult job even more costly and time consuming.

Second, and more pertinent, the basic aims of this war are very different from Operation Desert Storm. In 1991, the goal was to push Iraqi troops out of Kuwait and make sure they couldn't reinvade afterward. Bridges, railways, and roads were bombarded in order to cut off those troops—in Kuwait and in southern Iraq—from command channels and supply lines. Electrical power plants were destroyed in order to "blind" Iraq's politico-military machine. This was necessary to keep Saddam's intelligence officers from detecting the vast movement of U.S. troops and armor just across the border. This movement, which had to remain covert to be effective, allowed the United States to sweep up and around the dug-in Iraqi soldiers, surrounding them from the rear and the flank and thus attacking them from all sides, once the ground war started.

The destruction wreaked by this bombing was horrendous, especially since Bush I bugged out right after a cease-fire was reached, helping neither to rebuild the country nor to overthrow Saddam. The point here, though, is that power plants, bridges, and so forth were considered military targets in 1991; they are not—or at least not remotely to the same extent—in 2003. If these sorts of facilities are not bombed much in the coming war, then the assumptions in the U.N. and International Physicians' report are completely off-base, as are the casualty estimates that go with them.

A closer look at those reports' numbers reveals a great deal of looseness, even if their assumptions were pertinent. The U.N. report does not lay out the range of estimates—a failing that, given the range of uncertainties in any war, makes the calculations inherently suspect. (How 100,000 civilians are supposed to die in the course of the war, from the bombing alone, is not explained.) However, the International Physicians' report does lay out a range. In Baghdad, it states, civilian deaths caused directly by the war will total between 2,000 and 50,000; wounded will reach 6,000 to 200,000. In Basra, Diyala, Kirkuk, and Mosul, civilian deaths will be between 1,200 and 35,000; wounded, between 3,600 and 120,000.

But these aren't estimates; they're dartboards. A footnote in the report cites a source for these numbers, and it turns out to be an article by Brookings analyst Michael O'Hanlon that appeared in Slate last September. O'Hanlon wrote, "Iraqi troop losses might be expected to be anywhere from 2,000 to 50,000, with civilian casualties in the same relative range," adding, "Even as broad a range as this is based on certain assumptions." O'Hanlon was making the point that it's nearly impossible to predict how many civilians will die; it's based on too many factors that are themselves impossible to predict. The International Physicians, it appears, took O'Hanlon's hand-waving gesture of the task's futility as a precise piece of science.

The physicians go on to state that this war will "be much more intense and destructive than in 1991" because of the "new, more deadly weapons" that the United States has "developed in the interim." This makes little sense. To the extent the new U.S. weapons are deadlier, it is because they are far more accurate than those used in '91 and are, therefore, at least theoretically, likely to cause less "collateral damage." There has also been much talk of "direct-energy weapons," which can destroy electronic circuits by zapping them with microwaves. (Think of them as the opposite of "neutron bombs," in that they can destroy property without killing people.)

It is true that heightened precision can have a lulling effect on commanders. In the 1998 bombing of Yugoslavia, U.S. "smart bombs" had grown so accurate that the commanders dared to drop them on urban targets—particular buildings, specific street corners—that would have been impossible to hit so precisely, and therefore would have been avoided, in earlier "limited wars." However, some bombs did go astray, as some inevitably do; some targets were imperfectly identified (for example, as a military facility as opposed to what it really was—the Chinese Embassy); and, as a result, a few mistakes led to over 1,000 civilian deaths.

There is no way to estimate ahead of time—even within several orders of magnitude—how many civilians, or for that matter how many combatants, will die in this war or in any war. Beth Osborne Daponte is a public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon and a former government demographer who got hounded out of her job by the Bush I administration for attempting to do a post-'91 estimate of Iraq's civilian casualties. She is ignoring all inquiries about how many might die in this next war. As she put it to me, "Multiply an unknown by an unknown, and you get an unknown."
However, there are lessons to be learned from the '91 war. The vast majority of the deaths came after the war, as a result of the destruction of the country's infrastructure and electrical network. The best way to minimize casualties is to minimize targeting that network. Bush officials insist they are planning to do just that. If the war comes, they should be held to that standard.

happybrew · 02-25-2003, 06:12 PM

Outstanding piece of research, Boedy. They truly have no way of knowing what the casualties will be. However if Sadaam gives up now, we know exactly what they will be: zero. How come people on the left seems to talk as if the U.S. is the only party to this impending conflict?

happybrew

[ 02-25-2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: happybrew ]

GutshotApe · 02-25-2003, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by happybrew:
Outstanding piece of research, Boedy. They truly have no way of knowing what the casualties will be. However if Sadaam gives up now, we know exactly what they will be: zero. How come people on the left seems to talk as if the U.S. is the only party to this impending conflict? happybrew

The irony is that the protestors, who claim not to want war, are, by their actions, encouraging Hussein to stay and take his chances rather than bugging out in the face of strong, unified resolve by the US and allies to kick him out by force. As long as he sees possible daylight at the end of the bad dream he's now having, he is encouraged to stay.

Some of these misguided people are apparently posting professionally-prepared full color signs on trees along rural roads in my neighborhood that state "No Iraq War"............tomorrow I'm taking my tree pruning saw with the 18' handle out and will remove all the signs that I've seen so far........people in the USA have freedom of speech.....but I don't have to listen to them.....and I don't want to have to read their political sentiments plastered all over creation.....if I knew who was posting these signs I'd swear out a complaint against them for littering!!

Stratocaster · 02-25-2003, 07:19 PM

Saddam loves the protests he knows that gives him a little more wiggle room to resist the inspectors. Effectivley undermining the u.n.s effectiveness and americas aim at disarmament. The protests are hurting the process. Heck nobody likes war but sometimes using it as a threat for complicity as mandated by the u.n. is neccessary. History will show that the protesters hindered more than helped.didnt mean to hange the subject.

True · 02-25-2003, 07:25 PM

How many Japanese civilians were killed during WWII? How many Vietnamese civilians were killed during the Vietnam War?

Could they have gotten their numbers from previous "conflicts" that the United States has been in?

True

RvW · 02-25-2003, 07:32 PM

Quote:

The irony is that the protestors, who claim not to want war, are, by their actions, encouraging Hussein to stay and take his chances rather than bugging out in the face of strong, unified resolve by the US and allies to kick him out by force. As long as he sees possible daylight at the end of the bad dream he's now having, he is encouraged to stay.

There is no daylight at the end of Saddams tunnel (did I just say that?)

War protestors are not protesting Saddam being ousted, they (we) are protesting the US throwing its weight around when it as a nation has shoddy, questionable interests, and a need to retaliate in any forceful way in response to 9-11.

Protesters make no effort to support Saddams actions...lets be realistic here we all want to see Saddam gone but I firmly believe most protesters act on a desire to see every last effort made to solve this feud peacefully.
Protestors add balance, and deserve just as much of a voice as warmongers do.

When I as a "person on the left" as I�ve so been labeled protest war, I protest the need for death to civilians and troops that may have been avoided if patience and resolve were more a focus than force.

I say use all the intimidation you can possibly muster at this point, move troops, lie to the media and tell them we've sent over 250k more troops, we've located Saddam, whatever, Alls fair in love and war!, uhh, except an unnecessary death.

COTR

RvW · 02-25-2003, 07:59 PM

To address Boedys post. It all makes perfect sense, or (my left leaning senses tell me) none at all!

Sure, no power plants etc will be targeted, but how many people in Iraq already know how to function without the things like power and sewer treatment etc.?

Is there some sort of "new" war standard that has been adopted here in the last 50 years that I am not aware of? Is there suddenly a more humane way to kill someone?

Is Saddam any more or less evil by sheilding himslef with the citizens of Iraq when we will go and kill them to get to him regardless of his "cowardly" actions? Uhhm if we fire the gun towards Saddam knowing it has to pass through hundreds of innocent people to reach him, how is Saddam any more evil than the person pulling the trigger?

Maybe a study by the RIGHT should be done to estimate how many Iraqis AND US soldiers will die?

I seriously doubt the right is completely willing to take off their "Dead Saddam" blinders long enough to see the bodies that lie between US interests and a dead Saddam Hussien.

[ 02-25-2003, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

Flatfish · 02-25-2003, 08:22 PM

Ya know, I have stayed away from these war posts for a long time. Now the civilian casualties are a terrible thing. But as I see it, we are here now because we listened to the bleeding hearts at NATO during George Sr. administration. All we had to do was finish the job. But NATO only supported getting Saddam out of Kuwait. We did that well and fine, but here we are 10 years later facing him down again.

Now if we split the difference between the GW supporters and the GW haters( which seems to me that who is in charge of the country is as much as anything being argued, when it is not who that is in charge, it is the charges we are bringing on Saddam... ) and we say that he is linked to terrorist activity. How much so I cannot say, but I think there is reasonable evidence.

So if we got him as far as evidence goes, maybe it is not how many of Iraqs people will die, but whether we will put up with terrorism at all. Or is there a price in civilian casulties that can be measured?

So how many people does it take before we defend ourselves? Do civilians count as more or less than a soldier? If 4000 of our people die, how many of the Iraqis are killed in return? This is not an eye for an eye stuff here.

We should and could have fixed the cancer 10 years ago. Now the risks are much greater. Which is very unfortunate. But to not fight for freedom is to surrender. I would rather count corpses, mine and my families included, instead of giving up my freedom.

War is hell. But there have been wars for as long as man has walked this earth. There will be more. If you do not support your country during the hard times, why do you deserve its freedom? If you are not willing to fight, you are a second class citizen.

After seeing all the uproar over this war, I am ashamed of my neighbors.

Freedom is not, has never been, and will never be free.

Mark

[ 02-25-2003, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Flatfish ]

RvW · 02-25-2003, 09:50 PM

Flatfish...see post above yours.

MasterCaster · 02-25-2003, 09:58 PM

flatfish,

Quote:

We should and could have fixed the cancer 10 years ago. Now the risks are much greater. Which is very unfortunate. But to not fight for freedom is to surrender. I would rather count corpses, mine and my families included, instead of giving up my freedom.

I also try and stay out of these type of posts but

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] for that quote!

Jon :smile: :grin: :smile:

RvW · 02-25-2003, 11:06 PM

MC and FF...read "atlas shrugged" its disgusting but thought provoking.

[ 02-26-2003, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

feisty's wife · 02-26-2003, 01:22 AM

I beleive that all we have to do to get an idea of the up-coming war is to read or see "BlackHawk Down"....I thought we learned through the waste of Vietnam, get ready, young folks, your Vietnam is coming.

Flatfish · 02-26-2003, 07:04 AM

Does anyone here believe that there is a military force anywhere in the world that can match ours?

We are the finest fighting force in the world. If we want to end thid quickly we have the ability to do so.

Why should we do a study to see how many folks may die? How long should we wait before we strike? Should we ever retalliate?

I have read most of what has been said on both sides of the issue. The only issue I have is Saddam has been linked to terrorism. If he is the enemy, we need to address that. Not study how many folks could lose their lives in the process. We have been attacked. If you refuse to defend yourself, then your grandkids will get your legacy.

May God Bless America.

Mark

The Fishing Geek · 02-26-2003, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Flatfish:
Does anyone here believe that there is a military force anywhere in the world that can match ours?

We are the finest fighting force in the world. If we want to end thid quickly we have the ability to do so.

Why should we do a study to see how many folks may die? How long should we wait before we strike? Should we ever retalliate?

I have read most of what has been said on both sides of the issue. The only issue I have is Saddam has been linked to terrorism. If he is the enemy, we need to address that. Not study how many folks could lose their lives in the process. We have been attacked. If you refuse to defend yourself, then your grandkids will get your legacy.

May God Bless America.

Mark

Just because we are the most awesomely-equipped superpower that the world has ever seen doesn't mean that we should throw it around on a whim. Rather, being in this position of power requires us to be extremely responsible with what we do.

You mention retaliation...retaliate for what? What has Hussein done to us?

Hussein has been linked to terrorism. Great. So has America, in numerous instances. Mind if a country comes along and bombs us for it? Heck, Bush tried to put Kissinger into the position of investigating the 9/11 attacks, and this man was instrumental in the Chilean assassination some 30 years ago. Why hasn't he come to trial?

GutZ · 02-26-2003, 12:26 PM

If in overthrowing Saddam's Regime and the ultimate destruction of his Chemical and Biological weapons we save 1 or 100 or 10,000 Americans any price paid in Iraqi blood will be worth it.

Deepslayer · 02-26-2003, 12:29 PM

I think the question should be, how many civilians won't be killed by Sadam after the war is over? How many thousands does he presently kill each year to protect his regime? How many of those are relatives and "trusted" advisors?

Flatfish · 02-26-2003, 06:30 PM

I never said that we should use our might on a whim. The point is Extreme responsibility has been shown up to this point. On Sept. 12 2001 it would have been easy to crush Bin Laden. But revenge is a meal best eaten cold.

It seems to me David,that you take this as a partisan thing. You have your opinion. Good for you. At least you have put some thought into it.

I wonder how many civilians died when the USA deliberated entering WW II? How many years did it take? Lessee(working from a weak memory here..1936 to 1942?? it was '42wasn't it?

The French Owe Japan a thanks for that whole Pearl Harbor thing. Maybe we would have never woke up to the horrible things that were right in front of us, but we didn't want to believe it could be true. Hell if they hadn't started with us, French would be a language of the past.

This whould "But what if"mentality,when sufficient evidence is brought forward) is a huge problem in America( actually the U.S.A)and is IMHO exactly what is wrong with our failing "criminal justice" department.. Too many Lawyers making a living on "What IF??"" The cops are arresting the bad guys, but "What IF?". What if Saddam does have a chemical weapon(s)? Do you want to wait for him, or one of his closet cohorts( maybe Osoma himself??)to deliver it to our country?

Did anyone ever wonder why we ask of the potential death toll on our military by going there now? Did you ever wonder what a SOLDIER is sworn to do? That is their job. To fight. To die if necessary, to protect our country.

War is hell.

Not protecting your own is worse.

Mark.

"What if?"= OJ is NOT GUILTY.

Ex-military · 02-26-2003, 11:02 PM

As a former AF intel analyst and targeteer specializing on Iraq, I have to add a few things
to the posts that Boedy and others have put up. First off, casualties is quite different from fatalities. If you pull a groin muscle running
in combat you are a "casualty", a fatality is obviously just that. The US military does not intentionally target non-combatant targets such as hospitals, schools, religious sites, and historical sites. As a matter of fact we maintain 4 separate lists (a master list that identifies most all structures including hospitals and such, a Master Target List that includes all normal targets, a restricted target list that shows targets that are important but because of collateral damage or such may be less desireable to strike, and a No strike list that lists targets not to be struck under any circumstances. Because of that, Iraq has repeatedly moved military combat equipment into or adjacent to those facilities. Each and every "static" target that is identified (and there are hundreds of thousands to choose fromin iraq) go through a process of assessment that takes into account the collateral damage from weapons employment, and risk vs gain.
I would say that there will be a large impact on the civil population centers (Baghdad, Tikrit, An Nasariyah, Al Kut, Al Basra, etc) when the electrical systems are taken out. I do not forsee the destruction of many bridges in this campaign, first because we need them to move north, and second there are no large forces arrayed against us that we need to keep from being reinforced, they are withdrawn to around Baghdad and Tikrit. The regular army conscripts in S. Iraq will probably surrender enmass within the first 48 hours (like they did in D.S.).
So there in a not so small nutshell is my experience...will it be hard and/or trying on the average Iraqi citizen...probably, will they face extreme danger..Maybe from Saddam, but not from the Allies.

Ex-military · 02-26-2003, 11:32 PM

As an afterthought:
the worst part for civilians will be the seige of Baghdad...that's where the biggest potential for civilian fatalities will be incurred. With any luck, Saddam won't try and hole up since there isn't many places he can hide that we can't reach with conventional munitions. If he decides to go mobile in one of his RV's it bodes much better for the civilians and means he's in the countryside hoppin from place to place. There will be targets struck in the middle of cities (power switching yards, railyards, and telephone switches) but those areas of destruction will be fairly localized.

feisty's wife · 02-27-2003, 01:24 AM

No evidance has been shown linking Iraq to 9/11...though the Gov. has tried to say that this is so, but, of course, they would NEVER lie to us, would they?My, how quickly we forget, anyone here know any Vets with Gulf War syndrome, or Agent Orange victoms? Of course, we never here of the horrible birth defects that our depleted uranium munitions have caused in Iraq, de we? Uh Oh, here it comes...Anti-American...Un-Patriotic

Straydog · 02-27-2003, 06:19 AM

My question is, how many innocent dead people will be enough to satisfy the tough guy fantasies of the war mongers..?

[ 02-27-2003, 07:42 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

monoman · 02-27-2003, 07:09 AM

Stray
Who are the war mongers? Who are these tough guys you name?
If you think people who want to kill Saddam are war mongers, than there is a lot of them. I stand up for what I believe is correct, does this make me a war monger. You think I'm wrong, does this make you some kind of "Pinko" :tongue: War mongers are among us, but they are few.
I don't think we should pass this problem down, let us get rid of this bad guy and maybe a couple more. I don't know anyone who would want to give this problem to their childern. Remember Saddam has sons waiting to take over, the problem will not just go away.

Straydog · 02-27-2003, 07:14 AM

Mono,

Well, we could start in the Oval Office and end up in the thread talking about how awesome some missle is and how anyone killed in an Iraqi tank is there because he wants to be and there are plenty in between.

I would think even a redneck St. Croix stick believer could figure that one out!?!?! :shocked:

Pinky

monoman · 02-27-2003, 07:41 AM

Stray
If 43 was a war monger, he would have leveled several other places on that left leaning globe of yours. He would not have let Powell put us in the spot that we are in with the UN and he would have laughed at Nato. He has war mongers standing next to him and he has doves, I believe he listens and than makes his mind up. It's easy to rank on the Pres, it's our job to rant about him. I think your just wrong about the war monger thing.
Now as far as those that like missiles and tank going off, most are not war mongers, they just like the 4th of July fireworks more than you. :grin:
To be a war monger you must like war more than the settlement. Those who think we should go to war over all else or just because we can, are war mongers. Not those that believe we have tried and waited long enough. You may think this guy Saddam is OK, but I'd bet ya you would prefer him gone. Should we pass him to our kids?

Even an all left leaning sport like yourself should see this! :grin:

Straydog · 02-27-2003, 07:48 AM

Mono,

Have you ever seen GW live and in color?

Body language is 80% of communication. His body language when I saw him was that of a short guy, tough guy, wanna-be cowboy war monger. (his wife admited on the radio they don't own horses, she said GW is a 'four wheel drive cowboy'....)

A real telling point was when he described
the work in Afgahnastan and how they chased thousands out of the caves. He then pauses, chuckles, and glibbly adds "some weren't so lucky." He then struts from the behind the podium with his best Texan bow legged hands ready to draw stance and gleams with appreciation as the crowd goes wild!

My wife and I were conspicuously out of place when we remained sitting while hundreds of war mongers rose and clapped. This was not about killing Osama, it was not about killing Sadam, it was about laughingly saying some were not so lucky and are now dead because of thier beliefs. I do not and will not support that.

That, my scarlett necked friend and associate :grin: is a war monger.

No, I do not want Sadam passed on. I bet there are many that do not want GW passed on. Does that give them just cause to attack our country?

[ 02-27-2003, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

monoman · 02-27-2003, 08:25 AM

Funny thing Dog, I saw Gore once, I wouldn't have voted for him if they were running Jimmy againist him. Maybe we should never see our leaders, this allows us to believe what we want and not what we think we saw.
GW will not be passed on he will be voted in again.
So you think we should just sit on our hands and let the French in their wisdom solve Saddam as a problem? Maybe it is time we take our toys and go home. I don't think I would mind this, if we stayed home when things start blowing apart. Let's not go to war for anyone or anything expect ourselves. If someone does something to us, we take our toys out and set a few off. Than they will stop being bad.
Now go to work dog. I must go and see if my tie will hide that red! [img]graemlins/berry.gif[/img]

[ 02-27-2003, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: monoman ]

Straydog · 02-27-2003, 08:43 AM

Mono,

Focus my friend, focus. We are not talking about Gore. Gore is not the President. He didn't get the appointment.

Hey, I have this nice tie dyed neck tie that I bet would cover your blemish!! :grin: :grin:

BTW, I too voted for Bush....

as hard as it is as this moment to admit it. :blush:

Why would you go see Gore??? I think it would be more entertaining to watch the grass seed germinate! :grin:

[ 02-27-2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

monoman · 02-27-2003, 08:50 AM

Doggy
I will listen to anyone. I will allow anyone the chance to change my mind.
By the way, tie dyed, in the hemp growing Capital of the west of Grantspass, isn't that making a statement?

Straydog · 02-27-2003, 08:58 AM

Monoman,

"It's the climate."

Again, focus, we are not talking renewable resources and the economic base of Cave Junction, we are talking about our President and war. :grin:

[ 02-27-2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

TheTexan · 02-27-2003, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Straydog:
Mono,

Have you ever seen GW live and in color?

Body language is 80% of communication. His body language when I saw him was that of a short guy, tough guy, wanna-be cowboy war monger. (his wife admited on the radio they don't own horses, she said GW is a 'four wheel drive cowboy'....)

A real telling point was when he described
the work in Afgahnastan and how they chased thousands out of the caves. He then pauses, chuckles, and glibbly adds "some weren't so lucky." He then struts from the behind the podium with his best Texan bow legged hands ready to draw stance and gleams with appreciation as the crowd goes wild!

My wife and I were conspicuously out of place when we remained sitting while hundreds of war mongers rose and clapped. This was not about killing Osama, it was not about killing Sadam, it was about laughingly saying some were not so lucky and are now dead because of thier beliefs. I do not and will not support that.

That, my scarlett necked friend and associate :grin: is a war monger.

No, I do not want Sadam passed on. I bet there are many that do not want GW passed on. Does that give them just cause to attack our country?

Dog,
I may be the one you are looking for, the Red Necked War Monger type! I have met Bush personally and spent 15 minutes speaking to him. War monger? No way. As far as him strutting from behind the podium hands on his hips, I call it pride and a sense of accomplishment. I would be even happier if none of the thousands that escaped the caves got away. Remember they chose to follow Osama and his preaching. Do you not remember the pictures of the people jumping to certain death from the trade centers? Do you not remember the voices of husbands and wives making their last calls to loved ones? How about the pregnant mothers to-be and the babies that will never know their parents? The Taliban and AQ are responsible for what happened to these innocent people. I am proud that Bush and America did not let them all escape. I am sorry for the families of the Fire Fighters that lost their lives saving other Americans that we did not get every last one of the Taliban and AQ!

If I am a War Monger for believing that all of AQ and the Taliban should be captured or killed then so be it. I can live with you calling me a War Monger. If Bush was a War Monger, Afghanistan would have been a 2000 degree parking lot on September 12th.

Straydog · 02-27-2003, 09:32 AM

Ex,

Not looking for those that believe as you do, they are right in front of my nose and easy to find if I were indeed 'looking' for them.

If you find chuckling over the death of anyone appropriate, so be it.

I do not, nor does the God I believe in.

[ 02-27-2003, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

fish_on · 02-27-2003, 03:22 PM

Straydog ever thought of being a human shield?

Straydog · 02-27-2003, 05:55 PM

No, why do you ask?

monoman · 02-27-2003, 06:06 PM

Dog
I think he asked, because the last time I saw you it looked as if you gained a couple of pounds :shocked:

Straydog · 02-27-2003, 06:22 PM

Mono,

That must be it.

I sure wouldn't want to think he is implying I should embark on a suicide mission due to a differing opinion.

Straydog · 02-28-2003, 05:49 AM

Fish_on,

I was disappointed you didn't answer my question.

You seemed compelled to ask me one that I answered straight up and with respect.

Are you going to have the courtesy to answer mine?

Why do you ask if I have ever considered being a human shield?

Straydog · 03-01-2003, 06:27 AM

Fish_on,

What's the matter, cat got your fingers?

I am real curious about why you would ask if I had considered becoming a human shield?

You post a question that could be taken as very disrespectful if not down right ugly in my mind, by implying I might consider putting myself in harms way.

If that is not what you meant, I would think you would want to clarify your point.

I would also think the moderator might have a question about such a comment too.

I guess as long as you don't call names it must be ok......... :whazzup:

Big TULE · 03-01-2003, 01:00 PM

How soon we forget what this country was built on... Freedom, of just about everything. What the protesters do not realize is that how it makes the people in the military feel, and the soldiers family feels. I feel like we have no support, from any one. I will never support any protesters wether the protest war or not. Right now they are protesting war, do not send our kids to fight for the country, well ask 95% of them and they will tell you they would never let there kids join the military. Those are the leftist that i say .... off and do something to support the cause and not hurt it... No war in iraq, from americans sounds like we support you saddam... Sorry i have been reading this and have been fuming over the last few threads on war.
Ya know what, if we didn't want to go we wouldn't have joined.
I have a friend who got her car all busted up and has been harassed while she was driving, just for having a GO NAVY sticker on her car, all in downtown portland in a row where hers was the only one busted up 3 times in the last 4 months... Yeah support for the military here in portland sucks and i hate to say it because i love it here...