Tuesday, April 1, 2003

Death Stats: thru 12 days

US: 46 killed, 17 missing.
Britain: 25 killed.

-civilian: 589 killed, 4,582 injured.
-military: "US doesn't want to get into body count business". Gee, I wonder why...I would bet it's 3 times as many of civilian casualties.

This war has brought on more destruction and death to Baghdad than crashing two commerical jets into NYC ever could. Who's the terrorists again?

"The U.S. has the largest nuclear arsenal--more than 6,000 nuclear missiles and bombs. It has spent $4 trillion on nuclear weapons since 1945. When it had a monopoly on these weapons it did not hesitate to use them against civilian centers--up to 200,000 civilians were instantly incinerated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945."

Sounds pretty terrorific to me.

Harry Belafonte was quoted calling Colin Powell "a plantation slave", which at first glance sounds very racist, but it is by far not. Colin Powell is a very smart man. He's a 4 star general. They don't give those out to any joe off the street. He was against this war, until he took on too much pressure from Criminal Junior Bush. Grow some fucking balls, Colin.

Speaking of that, in the Bill O'Reilly interview with Janeane Garafolo, he mentions Belafonte's remark about the secretary of state and says "it is something 90% of American's disagree with". This is what I hate about Fox News and Bill O'Reilly, they act like they speak for America. You are just one fucking voice in the crowd, Bill. Go back to college and study harder and party less. You fucking ignorant sham.


  1. You have to be kidding me!!

    Here you might as well go get your email at this link: http://www.aljazeera.net/

    Maybe you can read this


    http://www.salon.com/books/int/2003/03/22/berman/index_np.html <- you will have to buy this one though



    Unplug from the Saddam propoganda media outlet and get real. Even the media in Kuwait shows a closer picture of what is really going on in Iraq.

    589 killed if that report comes from Al Jazeera then I would guess it is more like 58 killed. Even if 589 people are killed I wonder why. Maybe because Saddam's henchmen kill them.

  2. Uhm, next time your in NYC I'll show you a fucking big hole in the ground.

  3. How many holes in the ground are there all over Baghdad due to our bombs? Just curious...

  4. Of course Saddam is evil. I have always said that, but why the hell are we killing civilians? 580, 58, same fucking difference. Saddam is evil. He does kill his own people, but what do you think US bombs kill? You can't seriously believe they are all just killing people of the Iraqi government?! Bombs are not an exact science. They destroy what they hit and scatter debries and shrapnel everywhere. I'll say it again, all we had to do was send a bunch of Seals in, and take out Saddam. Screw that Internation law that Jimmy Carter created. Bush doesn't give a hoot about International Law anyway, and I am faily sure Bush has violated it if in fact Saddam has been killed.

    Oh, and I didn't get those numbers Al Jazeera. Thankyouverymuch.

  5. if you'll excuse me, it doesn't matter the amount of people who die, it's the fact that they are dead. If i shot the prez, you'd say that's wrong right? EXACTLY!

    It's the same here, killing people because they don't agree is wrong. I'm not condoning Saddam, i don't like him either but let him get overthrown by his own people, it's bound to happen SOMETIME.

  6. The iraqi people cant over throw him, they are scared. As for the bombing, we didnt just wake up one day and bomb him, we gave him an ultimatem and he ignored it (suprise). Yeah there might be holes in the ground in Baghdad but not a single one is the size of 4 city blocks and 10 storys deep. I agree we didnt go in on the best circumstances, it could of been handled differently, but it wasnt so deal. And yes you should support the troops, not because of the war they are fighting but for what they stand for. Yeah they volunteer to go into the service but its still a job and they are just doing it. I'm sure you do the same everyday at your job. They didnt start the war politicians did.

  7. I wish someone would give me an order to kill another person. That would be kickass.

  8. Yeah, they're just following orders. A perfect reason to kill another human being!

  9. Okay, maybe there's not a hole the size of 4 city blocks, but also, I doubt there any buildings of that magnatitude, that could create a hole that big.

  10. Boz,

    I didnt say you got it from Al Jazeera. Maybe if you get your head out of your ass you will be able to see that. All you have to do is read what I wrote and you will see that I did NOT say you got your news there. However, where do you think that number of 589 came from? French news? Russian news? German news? Again I challenge you to get your head out of your ass.

    Again your are mistaken boz. President carter did not create international law when he included the prohibition on assassination in "Executive Order 12036" http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12036.htm Maybe you need to do some research and actually find out what an "Executive Order" is. I can assure it does not equate to international law. http://www.thisnation.com/question/040.html

    I see you have not read the articles that I posted. You probably discount it as right-wing propoganda. That is your right. It is also your right to stick your head in the sand and try to ignore the reality of the world we live in today.


    People will die. I will die eventually. You will die. Someone will die in a car accident tomorrow. I dont see you protesting the use of automobiles. "Motor Vehicle Deaths: 43,354 (2000)" http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/acc-inj.htm

    Overthrown by his own people??

    How are they suppose to get the money to do that? It isnt obvious that he controls the money flow in the whole country?

    "It's" bound to happen sometime. I will let you guess what "IT" will be.

    I will tell you one thing Zooky. I have a cousin. He is in the 3rd infantry 2nd division of the U.S. Army. In other words he will be fighting to take control of Baghdad. If he dies it will be a tragedy. But whatever happens I will have great pride in him. I have great pride in the fact that signed up to server OUR country. He signed up to fight for our freedom and to follow the orders of the Commander and Chief. It doesnt matter what president it is. It wouldnt matter if the president was Gore. He would still fight for your freedom and for your safety.

    I have about 15 people in my immediate family. I can only think of it like this. Put yourself in this position. You live under opression for 20 years and you have no means or might to liberate yourself. What would you do if your opressor told you that you could sacrifice yourself and your family would be liberated? With the immense love I have for my family I can tell you what I would do. That sacrifice would be a small price to pay for their freedom. Just think about that.

  11. I have read the articles, Scott, and I understand that it was an Executive order...but everybody always has been calling it an International law not to kill a nation's leader...in any event, if Saddam is dead, from a pre-emptive strike, than Bush is in violation of that Executive order.

    Umm...did you just compare an act of war to motor vehicle deaths? Aren't they also called accidents? Being as, they don't happen because of irrational gunfire?

  12. hey, your cousin, your brother, your son, your daughtor, your son in law, your step son,



    is that enough support for you?

    By the way,

    I'd rather die by falling asleep at the wheel and hitting a guard rail with little or no pain than being hit by some flying metal from a bomb, linger around for a few days with the pain and then die.

    Ok and if killing another person is OK for you, why don't we keep your cousin at home, send in a seal team and take out saddam and his brothers, and high ranking officers.

    Oh wait my bad, you're going to tell me that's illegal, wait a second... isn't killing people illegal anyway?

    Why not minimize deaths, and take him out?

    Oh wait, it's about oil, wait no... then why did american soldiers light oil wells on fire in Gulf War pt. 1? HALLABURTON.
    Either way, Bush's cronies win.

    That's what this war is about: Money, and Who's dick is bigger. (ok the dick part isn't literal, but it is about who has the better military)

  13. Yeah, last time I checked, killing people was very illegal. Guess something has been changed. Better go murder those stupid kids who keep playing basketball near my car...

  14. I want people to stop saying this war is about OIL. IT IS NOT ABOUT OIL. It is about being scared of people who are different, and thus, erradicating them. I bet Bush would love it if everybody on Earth was a Texas lovin, American! Ain't that right, boy?

  15. From : http://www.aljazeerah.info/1%20news/Day%2012%20of%20the%20war%20on%20Iraq%20aljazeerah.info.htm

    I am not saying you got your statistics here but I am saying that those statics come from iraq them self.

    * US: 46 killed, 17 missing.
    * Britain: 25 killed.
    * Iraqi military: No confirmed figures.
    * Iraqi civilians: 589 killed, 4,582 injured.

    I don't take all news as fact. But I am extremely suspect of the news comming out of the Al Jazeera network.


  17. Hey now, leave the rimshots out of this. lmao

  18. hey scott,
    where do you get your figures?

    FOX NEWS???


  19. Just stay away from hannity & colmes...dont get me started on those two.

  20. Zooky,

    Everywhere I quoted figures I included links to where you can go see them yourself.

    I wont even bother. What a waste of my time.

  21. don't get me started on fox news...

    they're "biased and balanced" ROFL.

    Hey scott; Ever heard of the BBC? yeah, go watch/listen to them before you come whining about your cousin and how we should support him.

    God. People nowadays.

  22. now now, I support the people following orders, just not what they are doing over there. I think it is dispicable that they think it is okay to legally kill another human being all in the name of 'following orders', but I cannot hold it against them, as many lack the balls to stand up to bush and say "1234, i dont want to go to war!"

  23. "Everywhere I quoted figures I included links to where you can go see them yourself."

    looks like somebody ran out of ammo, duck and cover! she's gone from suck to blow!

  24. Whatever, just keep lying to yourself that we've only killed a handful of iraqi civilians...

  25. Yeah its so funny.

    We have the balls. "We are human shields because we want to stop the war!"


    "We do not have thousands of people here, we have hundreds, so now it's more about protecting sites, not stopping the war," he explained.

    So now itís not about having the "balls" but about compromising those coveted values. Go figure.


    "The people there are not there to support Saddam," he said. "They are there to show support and solidarity with the people of Iraq - and share their fate."

    Share their fate? Uh huh. Going to bed. Too late.

  26. I am not lying to myself. I didnt say there havent been Iraqi civilian casualties. I NEVER SAID THAT!!! I did downplay the number that the Al Jazeera network is reporting.

  27. So...I wonder how accurate the US deaths are...hmmm

  28. Oh and your quote "the body count business" is from the Gulf war. You can't even quote a current source.

    Remembering the difficulty of trying to furnish exact combat death numbers during the Vietnam War, coalition military officials refuse to be drawn into what a Gulf War commander once famously called "the body count business"

    It is a practice that dates back to at least the early days of the Gulf War,

    when General Norman Schwarzkopf, who led coalition forces in that conflict, was asked about Iraqi casualties.

    "I have absolutely no idea what Iraqi casualties are, and if I have anything to say about it, we are never going to get into the body-count business," he said.

  29. You include it in your original post like it is a statement that someone said during this war.

    -civilian: 589 killed, 4,582 injured.
    -military: "US doesn't want to get into body count business". Gee, I wonder why...I would bet it's 3

  30. No shit Sherlock, but the article is about this war, didn't you read it?

  31. so according to you bozzy we shouldnt have a military because we might shoot someone in defense?

  32. I never said that. We shouldn't be attacking a country unless they attack us first. How would you like it North Korea (or some other capable country) started a pre-emptive war against us? Because they didn't like Bush and took it upon themselves to remove him from power? Would you like that? I know I wouldn't. I would be glad to fight in that war. Gladly. Yes, I did not have a problem with the war with the Taliban.

  33. We just didnt pick Saddams name out of a hat and decide to attack him. To put it mildly hes a bastard. And you cant tell me otherwise, anyone who has his henchmen throw people into a wood chipper (and i quote "feet first so they can hear the screams") shouldnt be in power of his own electric shaver nevermind a country. He is terrible to his people. I think the fact that the iraqi people in sometowns are waving american flags and trying to touch our troops as we walk by is a sign that we are helping them. Yeah it sucks the way it happened. Personally I think it should of been handled differently but I can see the otherside of the coin. Why should we have to wait until saddam throws a missle at us or one of our allies. We asked him nicely to get rid of it and he said he didnt have anything. he wouldnt let us look properly so we asked him to leave, he gave us the finger and said no. we bomb his headquarters and he promptly fired back with the weapons he didnt have. Oops, he forgot to mention those. So is the reasons his troops have gas masks for the annual April Fools costume party? Even disregarding that, since you say its ok for us to defend ourselves, is it ok to help defend an ally? If so why cant the Iraqi people be our ally and we are fighting against Saddam who has quite visibly attacked them throughout the years.

  34. I'm not gonna tell you otherwise. I know he's a monster, but I still do not see how this merits us bombing the hell out of Baghdad, especially since Saddam is either dead or in a bunker...either way he's underground!

    Thing is...Saddam can't attack us with a missle, he wouldn't even sell one to Bin Laden. He's a little chicken shit that cares too much about selling oil to other countries, as a business man, it would be unwise to attack your clients. No, this war is not about oil. If we wanted their oil, we could just buy it from them for A LOT less than the price of the war.

    The Iraqi people are not our ally. I had ABC news on this evening (I think that was peter jennings) and he talked to several Iraqis, and they said "Liberating? Who the hell told you guys we wanted to be liberated?"

    Excuse me, but I don't it is worth killing innocent iraqis and young american boys (and girls) if most people in Iraq don't want this. Just about the only people who do, are either in Kuwait or Northern Iraq (kurds), which is practically it's own seperate country.

  35. See I've heard just the opposite about the Iraqi's. I guess it all depends who you talk to (and if anyone is influencing them?). Same thing in this country... some are for it some are against it. Saddam is a coniving bastard, who know what he has/had planned. But I'll agree to some extent that he wouldnt attack us because he likes to pick on the smaller guys (ie firing on Kuwait). In a perfect world if we wanted to get rid of him we would of sent in the Navy Seals, plunked a few rounds and then got out before anyone knew we were there. Unforunately its not perfect.

  36. I've always said the 'Seals could do the job, and civilian casualities would be slim to none, as Seals keep a low profile until they have a clear shot at Saddam.

    What I don't get...if Bush doesn't care about the UN, then why does he care about the Jimmy Carter executive order banning assassinations? He technically broke it anyway if Saddam is dead...the way they went after him.

  37. Since you added links to hiroshima and nagasaki maybe you should read some material on these two events.


    In this page notice the following:

    "....In Kyushu the odds would be 3 to 2 in favour of the Japanese, with 790,000 enemy defenders against 550,000 Americans."

    How many do you think would have died?

    "Twenty-eight million Japanese had become a part of the National Volunteer Combat Force."

    "The civilian units were to be used in night-time attacks, hit and run manoeuvres delaying actions and massive suicide charges at the weaker American positions."

    In the end the bombs saved more lives than they took. Civilian casualties are a tragedy in any war. But unfortunately in war they are for the most part unavoidable.


  38. I also seriously doubt that actually assassinating Saddam would have ended the Iraqi leaders regime. Look at his two sons and his crazy cousin. They likely would have kept the current regime operating.

  39. The Seals would have taken out his sons too. Then install a new leader...bin laden...then take him out...

  40. Seals could of taken out the whole clan. The only problem with doing that is there could be mass 'distruptions' around the country with no order at all. At least with us their we keep things in line, so to speak. I think the whole purpose of the bombing the first night was more to say to Saddam, hey we know where you are and try to scare him shitless so he surrendered. Rubbing him out would have been a plus.

  41. bozzy,

    If I was a mind reader I would have known that. Nevertheless your mind probably isnt Atlas Shrugged and is more likely to be a choose your own adventure book.

    Just kidding on that. I just had to toss that in there. :D

  42. Choose your own adventure books? I remember those, lol.