300,000 dead in mass graves in Iraq. Women, children, men. Bullet holes right in the head.
In case anyone was wondering, 300,000 dead equals: 100 9/11's 250,000 more than Korea 220,000 more than Vietnam 298,000 more than Pearl Harbor 60,000 more than the bombing of Hiroshima 5000 more than the entire United States death toll in WWII
All of them slaughtered.
Just a little food for thought.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Why am I not hungry????
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Because you're not a maggott.
Despite what people say.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Iraqi and U.S. rights investigators said on Saturday they suspected Iraq had up to 260 mass graves containing the bodies of at least 300,000 people murdered by the former regime of Saddam Hussein." [emphasis added]
Of the 260 "suspected" mass graves, they've "confirmed approximately 40". For the mathematically challenged, that's just over 15%, which means something over 46 000 bodies. Which is not good, of course, but it isn't 300 000. Let's wait for those little nuisances called "facts" before speaking in such absolutes.
Posted by Aya (Member # 1148) on :
Still, one mass grave is one too many.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Pity only those in Iraq seem to count.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
And you know what really pisses me off? That they didn't count in the mid-eighties WHEN THE SLAUGHTER WAS AT ITS FUCKING PEAK.
Any revisionist who comes in and dares to use this as rationale for the invasion has all the moral fibre of Jack the Ripper. It was never about mass graves. NEVER.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And anyone who thinks it was about ANY one thing has all the knowledge of humanity of... er... someone who doesn't know much about how people make decisions. When was the last time YOU did something for exactly one reason with no others having any impact on your thought process at all?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
It's fun to watch silly people say silly things.
[ November 16, 2003, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The last time I set out to annoy you. 8)
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
What, that I am not hungry....
I have the flu, so I just haven't been for a week now...
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
no one said it was the reason for invading Iraq: but Aya and cartman are right: one is too many and it DOES seem that currently only ones in Iraq "count". If we're really going to be the world's policemen in the name of human rights and "preemtive defense" we have to stop this before it ever gets to "suspected thousands dead".
It's no like we didint have the informationuntill recently....and we actually had operatives observing and reporting on the Serbians killing thousands for more than a year before we (or the UN) did anything aout it. It was'nt popular enough to make the news when we had 24/7 O.J. trial coverage...
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Which is why this after-the-fact "oh yes, we also went in to liberate the Iraqi people from their evil oppressor" alibi is a load of crap.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Bush invaded because Bush wanted to. He appearently lied about why and was hoping that enough stuff would be found to justify this.
He will now be replaced by a different person from a different party, unless they screw up royal, or the holes aren't punched right....
Ends and means....
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Incidentally, I notice that Bush is now bowing to the might of Red Ken and will be paying the congestion charges during his ritual humiliation, sorry, state visit, to the UK. And the Queen has basically told him to stop asking silly requests (like structural changes to the Palace). And the protesters will be allowed to march. And Bush's armed guards will be subject to criminal liability if they shoot anyone. Not a good week for the pres.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Were structural changes to presumably historic buildings really requested? That's just ridiculous. I do find it odd that our head of state is visiting the capital of our strongest ally and yet he still requires half the London Police force (40,000 strong), and 600 of his own elite Secret Servicemen to keep him safe. Will those Secret Servicemen even be allowed to carry their guns? I suppose they would look silly with billy-clubs.
And I do find it awful that this Iraqi genocide (for which we laregly supplied the munitions) is only now being focused on, now that it is over. Just horrid. Horrid that it happened at all, and moreso that we were effectively complicit in it.
[ November 18, 2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Balaam Xumucane ]
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, you were busy waging an ideological war against the commies, so it all evens out in the end.
/cynicism
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Jason, I just caught what you said, about being a maggot....
Funny thing is, I am, 11Cs, Indirectfire Infantrymen, are known as Mortar Maggots.....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
That's more ironically scary than funny, you know. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)