new kind of body count in iraq

[AR182]

i saw this on another sight & thought some might find this article interesting......& am sure some won't.


New kind of body count in Iraq

Bucks County Courier Times

If you want to tick off the anti-war crowd, mention the good stuff we're doing in Iraq.

List American military accomplishments, the schools reopened, the electric power plants renovated and running, the murderous insurgents killed and captured.

You will be called a right-wing nut. Worse, present a photo of a U.S. soldier showing compassion for Iraqis.

Snarling fits follow.

Ever since Sunday's column about underreported good news from the war, stalwarts in the Every-War-Is-Vietnam tribe have been snarling.

Most upsetting to some was a photo accompanying the column. It showed Army Maj. Mark Bieger tenderly carrying a 3-year-old Iraqi girl who had been killed by a suicide bomber in Mosul May 2.

"Oh, Wow, what a beautifully stunning AP photo of an American GI cradling a DEAD kid in his arms" mocked one guy, who suggested I go to Iraq "to see truth in action."

When it comes to Iraq, these folks will not give the military and the honorable dead credit for good works.

All they do is count corpses. The body count is the sole gauge of the war.

"Any positive changes in Iraqi society cannot in any way negate the overwhelmingly negative developments, e.g., tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, the infrastructure largely destroyed, ongoing civil war without any apparent end in sight, not to mention over 1,000 Americans killed with tens of billions of dollars spent on a questionable venture," one man wrote.

A news release from the Brandywine Peace Community, which is helping organize an anti-warrior gathering this weekend on Independence Mall in Philadelphia. The headline, italics original:

"Demonstration planned for Sunday to 'COUNT THE COST' of Iraq War."
A subhead reveals what they will actually be counting.

"Anti-war activists to dramatize war toll with 'die-in' at Independence Visitors Center."

Does it occur to the corpse counters that there is a calculation to account for Iraqis who haven't died, and this because of the presence of the American military?

Saddam Hussein murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We don't know the actual number since mass graves, where most victims were dumped, are still being uncovered.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said 400,000 bodies have been found so far.

Let's do the math. Divide 400,000 by Saddam's 24 years in power. It averages an astounding 17,000 Iraqis slaughtered per year, about 1,400 per month.

We toppled Saddam two years ago. That means today, there are more than 30,000 Iraqi men, women and children who are alive because Saddam and his Baathist thugs aren't there to kill them.

These Iraqis are free and are building a new nation, with help from our guys.

I asked Robert Smith, organizer of this weekend's "die-in," what he thought of this new kind of body count.

"Your argument assumes a great deal," he told me. "It assumes Saddam had the same power in 2003 that he had in 1989, which he did not. He had been disarmed significantly. He was not a threat to his neighbors. This is destroying the village in order to save it. Especially now, as we see no end in sight to the violence, no end in sight to our occupation in Iraq. Ultimately, the only victor has been death."

Looks like old-fashioned corpse counting will continue.

Mullane's opinion column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday.

May 12, 2005 4:47 AM

 

[Marco]

The good stuff in Iraq doesn't mean much considering the fact that there is no exit plan and Bush will commit American troops to die until at least 2008.....he painted himself in a corner and won't admit it.....

Take all the "good" photos you want but it doesn't change the fact that 1600 American troops have died and 200-300 billion dollars has went up in smoke accomplishing nothing in the process.

Iraq is headed for civil war and the only thing stopping it is our military presence.....when the American voters wise up and realize what this war is costing our grandkids is the day we pull out of that $hithole and let the free-for-all begin over there.....

If we're going to try to spread democracy and regime change to every nation that has a thug in power looting the treasury, then we might as well dump our entire treasury into the fulltime job of being a world cop and peace broker.

Why is it there's 300 billion to blow in Iraq, yet states talk about budget cuts and how there's not enough money to go around and taxes will have to be raised to pay for schools and stadiums?

Where's the big rush to replace two WTC towers, and which foreign country is volunteering to foot the bill for that? Take care of our own infrastructure for once since this nation began, and just plain fvck Iraq.

 

[smurphy]

No doubt Saddam was a bastard. Only extremists think otherwise or justify him in anyway. And certainly getting rid of him CAN BE justified on our part. We can justify the removal of many tyrants around the world. That's never been my argument.

But basically this is just part of the back-pedaling for why we invaded. None of these were sold to us as reasons before the war started. They seem to be emphasized now simply to cover up the failure of other reasons. Like all of a sudden after all this time we are supposed to give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people for some reason?

Why didn't we invade Rwanda to save the slaughter of Tutsis? Why didn't we topple Saddam back when we knew he was gassing Iranians, as opposed to actually supporting him at that time? Why do we constantly turn a blind eye to tyrants around the world, as long as they line up with us politically. Look at the history of Central and South America just for starters.

Basically, I'll shut up about this stuff if the other side also shuts up. I want us to prevail as best as possible. Our troops are doing great things, and I commend them completely. I don't like getting in the circular arguments, but it's hard to let "articles" like that go without a response.

 

[djv]

It's going so good I expect we will be there another 2 to 4 years. They talk about schools. Same amount of schools are open now that were before. Electrical plants are not able to keep up with demand. Oil Iraq used to export it. They now import it.
Training for terrorist looks to be a everyday finding. Dead Iraqis found in graves seem to have Iran soldiers there also. Remember they believe over 350000 Iraqi and Iran soldiers were killed in that war including 75000 civilians. And the Kurds were stuck in the middle of this and lost 30000 to 35000 folks killed by both
armies. So Saddam was bad ass for sure. But he didn't do all the killing. And he sure was stuck with little of anything called a army after 1991. He was going no place fast. So we were so scared we invaded this 3rd rate bum.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"It's going so good I expect we will be there another 2 to 4 years."

Did CNN not show all the terrorist being turned in by Iraq people of late--did they not show them voting in higher turnout than U.S. elections despite threat of death--did they not announce they now have democracy with in 2 year after be ruled by cut throat dictator who massecreded 100's of thousands.

Maybe you ought to change channels--your outlook might improve but then again I guess that one outlook is derived for his preferred outcome.

and on being there 2 to 4 years--I would assume they have high hopes we have some presence in middle east permanatly.

 

[Marco]

"....did they not announce they have democracy with in 2 year after be ruled by cut throat dictator who massecreded 100's of thousands."

To have the Iraqi public vote a few months ago and claim that democracy is there to stay is about as weak as saying that a seedling oak tree is as strong and viable as a 40 year oak.

We've been there two years, and all through this time there have been attacks from insurgents, policemen are being slaughtered, political leaders and judges are getting assassinated left and right, and some people think that the common people are just going to vote and all evil will just go away?

Our own military recruiting numbers are down because the American public knows what a quagmire Iraq is, and that a commitment to the military means a very possible deployment to Iraq, not to mention that once you commit, the government is under no obligation to honor that commitment and can extend your tour for as long as they want. Who wants to sign up under those conditions?

Saddam kept control in Iraq through brute force, and the only glue in place in Iraq right now is the American military. When/if the military leaves then expect the civil war to break out, clashes between the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, and general lawlessness.

Best case left for Iraq is the warring groups divide the country and stay in thier own territory, like the gangs do in the big cities....

Worst case is one group takes over the leadership and country and attempts to exterminate the others.....

Then we're back to where we started with Saddam Hussein, dealing with the next political John Gotti in Iraq.

 

[gardenweasel]

for some bush haters....and basically those that root for america to fail...like marco....establishing self rule in iraq must be done immediately....

but,saddam must be given decades to comply with u.n. mandates...

it is fact that almost all these insurgent attacks are from non-iraqi`s.....

we aren`t actually fighting iraqi`s anymore....we are fighting the war on terror...in iraq....

nothing`s been done?...well,libya basically gave up their nuclear ambitions...

iran is experiencing inner political turmoil from it`s student population,who are not anti-american..they are actually pro-american and want government by representation.......they are pressuring the mullahs for free elections....

an egyptian representative was just on tim russert`s show this morning....and they are experiencing the same pressure from their people....

the domino effect?....maybe...

will the situation in iraq degenerate into a civil war?...and will iraq revert back to a dictatorship?.....definitely could happen...

is the cup half full or half empty?....extreme liberals would rather bitch about things than accomplish them...

to throw your hands up and quit...as marco would like us to....is utterly ridiculous....

guys like marco....and the most extreme liberals in congress...if given their druthers....saddam would still be in kuwait.......and the u.n. and kofi and his son....would still be "sanctioning" them....of course,the new meaning of sanction is"to line your pockets under the cover of the corrupt u.n."....lol

but that`s extreme liberalism ...at it`s worst...not all liberals are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water...thankfully.....

just look at my new hero,hillary...

 

[Marco]

gardenweasel....If we were so bent on fighting terror we'd be fighting real terrorists and hunting down OBL instead of hanging around in Iraq fighting flagwaving nationalists.

We aren't any safer in the USA for fighting a few homies in Iraq. And for every one of those insurgents (that you like to claim are real terrorists) we kill there are 5 or 10 more ready to step in and die for thier religious based cause. So OBL runs free and we goad the local insurgents we created by our invasion into endless guerilla warfare.

Same thing happened in 'Nam....we killed scores or them, they just kept coming out of the jungle to fight us. What is going to be different in Iraq 30 years after we left 'Nam?

What did Bush think was going to happen when we invaded, was he expecting no resistance and roses flying all over the place? We've been there two years and the situation hasn't shown any sign of permanent change for the good....

"guys like marco...and the most extreme liberals in congress...if given thier druthers...saddam would still be in kuwait..."

If I had my way, if we had bothered to play policeman and go kick Saddam out of Kuwait, one of the terms of surrender for Iraq would have been the removal of Saddam from power and subsequently tried for war crimes. World opinion was on our side then. One other condition is that Iraqi oil proceeds go towards reparation of the war debt and damages caused to Kuwait. Without either of them clauses in effect, Saddam could have had Kuwait for all I care. Instead, we liberated Kuwait and then took it up the a$$ financially, put out all the oilwell fires and went home. Freedom isn't free, except for Kuwaitis who benefitted from our dumping billions of dollars just to see that they were free again. If that was such a good thing then why is it when someone's teeth hurt they go to a dentist, the dentist stops the hurt, and then gives the patient a bill. Why isn't that free but somehow military protection is? You suppose Kuwait is remembering our generousity and trying to do something about the high price of gas in this country?

Self rule in Iraq won't work when police precincts are getting blown up and elected officials are getting assassinated on a weekly basis. There's little structure to the whole damn nation that is even going to support any type of self rule, unless civil war is your idea of self rule.....who the hell in thier right mind even wants to be in a government position when the chances are pretty good that there's an AK waiting to unload on you upon leaving your house or the car beside you blows up? Where is all the "self rule" in scenarios like that?

"Establishing self rule in Iraq must be done immediately....."

How does that work.....does some king just "declare" it and everyone quits fighting? :mj07:

"to throw your hands up and quit...as marco would like us to...is utterly rediculous."

Yeah, better to enter a war with no clear strategy, no exit plan, and just dump hundreds of billions of dollars and send over 1600 American servicemen to thier graves, all with no end in sight. With that kind of thinking we'd still be shipping troops off to die in Vietnam, and we still wouldn't be winning.

Keep on burning them billions in Iraq, the national credit card is over 7 trillion and climbing, and it's only your grandkids future. :mj07:

 

[djv]

Everyone forgets GW 41 let Saddam off the hook. We had em by the balls and went home.

 

[gardenweasel]

nationalists?...read the papers,marco....most of these guys these are terrorists imported from outside of iraq....

the insurgents elements and terrorists blowing people up are comprised mostly of foreign jihadists recruited by al qeada..... the war is really a war of ideals....... islamofascist rule vs democracy....

read the papers.....even the liberal news outlets admit that most of the insurgents are foreigners....

and practically all of the supporting funding is coming in from outside the country...muslims?....yes...but,most not are not iraqis...

nationalists?....no......homies?....no....a few disenfranchised baathists...yeah...but i doubt that they are the ones that are bombing markets and civilians...

iraqis are now the main targets...

 

[Marco]

We don't OWE the Iraqis a democratic government or any other type of government for that matter to install. We spent billions cleaning up the mess they started and made in gulf war I, if anything the Iraqis OWE US for war expenses incurred during gulf war I.

The only other alternative is to let Saddam roll over the entire middle east, then ask the Saudis if they want thier own palaces back and what they're willing to give to get thier wives and daughters out of the gangbang. Freedom isn't free. Maybe after something like that transpired, we'd have our own piece of the middle east to suck the oil out of. Add a star to the flag, boys.

Kuwait got overrun by Iraq because Kuwait put all its money into palaces and put like three guys on the payroll when it came to a military force and national security. That and the fact that Saddam was feeling greedy and a bit froggy and decided to send the 4th largest army at the time on a Kuwaiti panty raid.

The problem is all these countries in the middle east know that they don't have to spend any money on security because they sit on the world's oil supply and there will always be countries like big brother USA willing to step in, spend all the big bucks, and do the heavy dying just to preserve the flow of oil and protect the weak sisters of the world.

As far as quashing dictatorships and brutal leaders, that's a fulltime job we can't even begin to afford to take on. There's about 200 nations on this planet, and we don't have hundreds of billions to just blow on regime changes and finding people with the mindset of the pope to take thier place.

Hitler destroyed Germany with his failed conquest of Europe, that doesn't mean we had to rebuild Germany. We had Pearl Harbor to fix.

We lost two WTC buildings on 9/11. No foreign country is stepping forward to rebuild two skyscrapers, yet we as Americans are stupid enough to spend hundreds of billions of dollars rebuilding Iraq and thier economy while there is a hole in the ground at ground zero.

If these guys in Washington want to export democracy to Iraq and see that it's running all peachy, then I encourage them to move there and buy houses there and put themselves in the crosshairs of the next insurgent. We can damn well find politicians that are willing to build schools in the US and rebuild our own infrastructure. The cities are aging, especially the old ones in the east......take some of those billions going into the bonfire in Iraq and use them to fund the "big dig" and that third water tunnel that New York City is currently building.

Given those two choices, its pretty easy to predict that some serious work here in the states would get done......the politicians don't have the balls to go where they are sending our kids off to die.

 

[StevieD]

Great posts Marco. To be sure Bush has played right into bin Ladens hands. We are going broke fighting this war and we are as unsafe as we ever were. Just look at that plane that flew over DC in the no fly zone. We didn't have a clue what to do. Shoot it down? What if it had a nuclear device inside? While we are fighting for Iraqs temporary freedom we continue to neglecte our own defense. The military is weaker and now we are letting the same people who devised this war decide which military bases to close!

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"To be sure Bush has played right into bin Ladens hands"

Yep most his close ties are now Martyrs--he can't even hide in pakistan--funding decimated--no more Taliban---
EXACTLY what he wants---evidently some think he hated roaming free with Clintons get out of jail free card--and being top dog in Afgan.
Might have to go one better than liberal logic and call this boston liberal logic.

 

[Marco]

"he can't even hide in pakistan--funding decimated--no more taliban---"

You'll have to pardon me for not sucking up to the lame thought that there are a finite number of people on this planet willing to die for terroristic causes....

The world has witnessed to example of Israel/Palestine, and how there always seems to be a guy willing to strap on a bomb and die regardless how many have given thier lives before him.....this has went on for decades.....at least some of us are paying attention.

Some of you guys in this forum will be shocked when the next major terrorist attack happens on US soil because you think in terms of that finite supply of terrorists and somehow once those people are captured or killed this all ends up like some Bruce Willis movie and everyone goes home tired but alive except the bad guys.

Call it liberal logic or whatever you want, but I'm not that gullible or that stupid.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"You'll have to pardon me for not sucking up to the lame thought that there are a finite number of people on this planet willing to die for terroristic causes....

The world has witnessed to example of Israel/Palestine, and how there always seems to be a guy willing to strap on a bomb and die regardless how many have given thier lives before him.....this has went on for decades.....at least some of us are paying attention"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And that is your liberal assessment of-- we are no better off with Afgan and Iraq as democracys than under Taliban and Hussein rule.

"but I'm not that gullible or that stupid."
--more opinion

Maybe a little test is in order
True or false
1.I believed Slick when he shook his finger at me on tv and swore he was innocent.
2. I beleve he didn't inhale
3. I believe the countless times Bill and Hilliary answered under questrioning I can't recall they were being truthful.
4. I believe Bill and Gore created the internet and were responsible for dotcom boom.
5.I believe felons should be allowed to vote.
6. I believe gays carrying protest signs that tell others to stop aids--make sense.
7. Believe child porn is a right to free speech
8. Believe or constitution was intended to kick children out of parks and lets gays in.
9. Believe gay sex is a natural act.

running out of space--but I think you get the picture.

 

[kosar]

And that is your liberal assessment of-- we are no better off with Afgan and Iraq as democracys than under Taliban and Hussein rule.

Good posts, Marco. I'm not gonna spend a lot of time typing in this thread because you covered it well.

Wayne, i've noticed that you've started slipping 'Afghanistan' in there lately as you are defending the Iraq war. One has nothing to do with another and I would argue that we are worse off in many ways as a result of our invasion of Iraq.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

"Good posts, Marco"

Yep by the liberal logic you consider great-- no one should have stopped Hitler,why because there will always be dictators wanting to rule the world. You guys never cease to amaze me

 

[kosar]

"Good posts, Marco"

Yep by the liberal logic you consider great-- no one should have stopped Hitler,why because there will always be dictators wanting to rule the world. You guys never cease to amaze me

How many more times are you guys going to make yourselves look silly by comparing WW2 to Iraq?

Resume's:

Hitler=Dictator whose massive army scorched a path through Europe in an attempt to take over the continent, at the least.

Saddam=Dictator who had a fourth rate army with no will to fight. Most lethal weapons in arsenal: Rocket propelled grenades and 42 scuds that couldn't hit within 50 miles of their target. Use of chemical weapons against Iran supported by US.

 

[StevieD]

Where are the fair and balanced guys to point out to DTB that he hates Clinton and therefore his opinion is skewed. I am not saure what that test has to do with anything. Maybe one of you fair and balanced guys can let us in on it?

 

[Marco]

"We are no better off with Afgan and Iraq as democracys than under Taliban and Hussein rule."

People assume that democracy is going to be embraced by the middle east when the only democracy in the middle east in Israel is fighting to keep from getting pushed onto the beach and into the water?

Good luck getting all these groups in Iraq and in the middle east to agree on something other than the thought of getting the Yankee to go home. When the Yankee does go home, they will revert back to fighting each other.

We are no safer from the rogue terrorists moving around the world because Iraqis can vote. The terrorists have thier agenda, to kill the infidels, common Iraqis just want to live and feed thier families. Getting the Iraqis to vote does not stop the terrorist mind.

"1) I believed Slick when he shook his finger at me on tv and swore he was innocent."

Politicians lie, I think we both agree on that. I just wonder why we spent all that money trying to figure out if Willy got a piece on the side. Should we have cared about his married life or just be concerned with what we hired him to do? Personally, run the country well, I don't care if you get a blowjob on the side.

"2) I believe he didn't inhale."

Another one closely associated to my response of number 1......SO WHAT IF HE DID SOME WEED! Unless he's on a constant acid trip during his term in the white house, should I really care if he takes a toke on the side? As long as he can do his job.

"3)I believe the countless times Bill and Hillary answered under questioning I can't believe they were truthful."

As before, politicians lie.....cuts right across through both parties.....if they were lying about personal information that we had no right to even ask them about, then good for them.

"4) I believe Bill and Gore created the internet and were responsible for the dotcom boom."

Bill Gates maybe.

"5) I believe felons should be allowed to vote."

Voting is an earned right and felons pissed away thiers.

"6) I believe gays carrying protest signs that tell others to stop aids--makes sense."

Am I sensing that some people think aids is a gay thing and thier own fault, instead of taking a reasonable, sensible approach and stating that aids is a HUMAN disease and doesn't care whether you are male or female, black or white, or gay or straight? From the humanistic standpoint, I can see anyone pleading to stop aids, just as groups plead for stopping cancer or other insideous diseases.

"7) Believe child porn is a right to free speech."

No. Minors wait until they are old enough to give adult consent.

"8) Believe or constitution was intended to kick children out of parks and let gays in."

I believe the Constitution was intended to provide individual liberty to choose one's own destiny, therefore there is room for both children and gays in the park. Should we segregate the park and have Catholics on one side and Lutherans on the other also?

"9) Believe that gay sex is a natural act."

Natural is a matter of personal choice. What one person finds natural and acceptable another person finds disgusting and unacceptable. That's why there are a dozen or more aisles in the grocery store, so those people who don't like broccoli can go get a ribeye. Should our sexuality be defined by a rigid list of rules and definitions, to the point where even you don't agree with what is defined as "natural" or "normal" or "acceptable", and even you are limited by someone else's tunnel vision?