Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to has anyone mentioned here Bush's acknowledging 30,000 Civilian casualties in Iraq?

re: has anyone mentioned that this is hardly news?
Tom Brosz — (archived)

Isn't that important news?

It isn't news at all. In every discussion here about Iraqi casualties, usually involving people trumpeting the ridiculous "100,000" figure, I have responded by pointing out that more accurate counts have been in the 25,000-30,000 range. Iraqbodycount.net, an anti-war site which has been doing this for some time now, has had that number up for all to see.

But by all means, try to sell this as some kind of revelation. Some Democratic constituents might be dim enough to buy it.

BTW, Bush's answer also included military casualties. The word "civilian" was plugged on by the media.

To say it would have been worse if things had been left alone there: isn't that playing the 'what if' card - hasn't that line of argument been discredited? Here, in this forum?

No, it hasn't been discredited, although a lot of people here have given it a hell of a try. The idea that Saddam's murders and oppression of his own citizens would have somehow just stopped if he had been left alone is as ridiculous as the idea the Hitler would one day have just stopped killing the rest of the Jews if we had left him alone.

The Left makes a big deal now that sanctions were "working." But during the sanctions, the Left said that 5,000 children a month were dying from those sanctions. Was that a lie? If it was, why believe them now?

Would sanctions have evaporated if we had not invaded Iraq? If so, what about Kay and Duelfer's reports stating that Saddam intended to resume WMD work as soon as the sanctions were gone? And if the sanctions stay, then what about those children?

I ask merely for information...

The information has always been there.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (79 posts)