It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
For all the surgical strike capability and avoidance of civilian casualities cliamed by the United States, over 10,000 dead civilians shows otherwise to me. Would these same 10,000+ civilians died under Saddam's rule in the last year?
A year after the war began Iraqi civilians are still being killed every day. Over 10,000 Iraqi civilians are estimated to have been killed since 18 March 2003 as a direct result of the military intervention in Iraq, either during the war or during the subsequent occupation. The figure is an estimate as the authorities are unwilling or unable to catalogue killings. "We don't have the capacity to track all civilian casualties," US Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt told Reuters in February.
You trying to say you wish more Iraqis had died?
Originally posted by Todeskopf
Sounds like a damn good start to me
Originally posted by Todeskopf
Sounds like a damn good start to me
Would these same 10,000+ civilians died under Saddam's rule in the last year?
Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Originally posted by Todeskopf
Sounds like a damn good start to me
If you are saying what I think you are saying, then you have some issues that need to be worked out.
Either that or you need to grow up and get out of highschool before you open your mouth.
Originally posted by heelstone
Had the U.S. not invaded, the 10,000+ number given by Amnesty International regarding the war would not have existed. These deaths are a direct result of U.S. action whether caused by the U.S. military or the Iraqi opposition.
[Edited on 20-3-2004 by heelstone]
Originally posted by Seekerof
As such, your point heelstone?
I mean besides the fact that you, along with those who opposed this war, opposed the Bush Administration's and other nations who joined the Coalition against Iraq, decision's to go to war, what is your point?
That "war" is indeed "hell", and that civilians are indeed accidently and/or inadvertantly killed or wounded in such?
What innocent Iraqi lives that were lost is certainly a tragedy, no disputing that, but please, and I encourage you, check and see how the nation, as a whole, feels about the removal of Saddam. Do they think they are better off without him or with him? Do they fear the Coalition occupation moreso than they feared Saddam's rule? Do they want a tyrannical rule or that type government back or do they want democracy and the ability to make choices that they certainly did not have under Saddam?
The article did not mention support of Saddam Hussein. Rather it is stating that human rights have yet to improve and appear to be getting worse in post-Saddam Iraq. Does that imply support for Saddam's regime? Perhaps if human rights were better off back in Saddam's rule then I guess it does. Otherwise, there was no support of the old Iraq within the article linked.
Originally posted by superpower
What amuses me is "liberal" human rights activists supporting Saddam.