world

87,215 Iraqis killed in attacks since 2005

70 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

70 Comments
Login to comment

Time for War Crimes charges against the instigators of the illegal invasion of Iraq...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And what was the number they were putting on the ruthless dictator. I know 3 men and a women that needs to find the same fate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the figures show that more than 110,600 Iraqis have died in violence since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion."

"The number is a minimum count of violent deaths."

Deaths directly connected to the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. based on lies perpetuated by the Bush administration.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al. are war criminals.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most of the deaths are Iraqi on Iraqi, American & British hands may not be clean but they are not responsible for these large numbers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's 87,215 Iraqis dead that shouldn't have been killed. This is due to the results of the war started based on lies. 87,215 innocent deaths. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK, now who's willing to dig up and print the numbers killed under Saddam so we can get a comparison?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Most of the deaths are Iraqi on Iraqi, American & British hands may not be clean but they are not responsible for these large numbers."

The Iraqi deaths were not all at the hands of Coalition of the Willing member forces, but the U.S.-led invasion instigated the years of brutal warfare that led to said deaths.

It's time for many Bush adminstration officials to stand trial at the International Criminal Court.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OK, now who's willing to dig up and print the numbers killed under Saddam so we can get a comparison?

S'easy, we all know Saddam killed three hundred million trillion gazillion innocent people, put them through a wood-chopper and fed their children to the lions in Baghdad Zoo. And he threw new-born babies out of incubators so's his men could swim in them, and his sons sodomised and then ate the Iraqi football team.

We all know Saddam was a Bad Man. How come some people cannot understand that that is neither reason nor justification for killing more of the same people who had it bad under Saddam?

2001~2008 will go down in history as the New Dark Ages.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

2001~2008 will go down in history as the New Dark Ages.

Roughly a year from this point I may petition to extend that to cover 09 unless things get better fast.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib at 09:00 AM JST - 24th April OK, now who's willing to dig up and print the numbers killed under Saddam so we can get a comparison?

Saddam is long dead, he paid for his crimes against those that opposed his rule.

Did the 87,215 people need to die?

How can anyone try to justify these killing by claiming someone else did more? There is justification for all those dead. Blood is on the hands of the Bush administration for buying into this war.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yep the Bush admin did buy into this war..directly through the Carlyle group.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

and all of them made money out of it..now free to enjoy ego golf together.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo: We all know Saddam was a Bad Man

And we all know that war and invasion is bad. Can't we just leave it at that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo again: How come some people cannot understand that that is neither reason nor justification for killing more of the same people who had it bad under Saddam?

You're refusing to look at the numbers Saddam killed and would have killed, then you ask, "Gee, is there any justification for an invasion?" Well, if you choose to ignore the cost of doing nothing from the time Saddam took power to the time his sons finally died and the civil war finished, I supposed the choice of invading does look pretty bad. You're always comparing the number killed from the invasion with 0, which is absurd.

The fact is that in your eyes there is no cost to letting a man like Saddam stay in power, or at least no cost that you're willing to include in your decision-making process. Until you include that cost you're not making a fair comparison.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We were told WMDs were the reason = a lie. Then we were told something like: "Well, Saddam killed so many Iraqis. He is so bad so this justifies an invasion". = a lie. We need a war crimes trial against the George W. Bush Administration.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib, I think you figure that the cost is "collateral" damage. The lives lost are not collateral to those people or those that cared about them. Saddam's murder was no worse. Murder is murder, no matter what the reason. As soon as the US invaded they started saying things like "We will search them out and kill them". Same barbaric language as so called tyrants and terrorists. Basically there is no moral difference between the US helicopter gunships and Saddam's Republican guard, but I'm sure that you will do your best to convince yourself there is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

[Did the 87,215 people need to die?]

Sure didn't. America invaded and did what they said. Took Saddam out. They would have been gone and not killed anyone if it weren't for factional in-fighting amongst Iraqis and those foreign 'freedom fighters' aka insurgents that also killed civilians on purpose to advance their political agendas. It would have been a lot worse if no 'insurgents' took up arms and let the US just go home. Then they could have gone on their killing sprees and the whiners could come on JT and blame America to their hearts content while Iraq fermented in it's own juices of hate and mistrust and murder. It's not the US's fault that the inhabitants of that region have a barbaric culture.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry: it would NOT have been worse if insurgents hadn't taken up arms. that's what I meant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wouldn't like this on my conscious. Then again, before everybody starts harping on about bringing the former US leadership up on charges, I would ask that you think a minute. Here are a couple of points.

The former US leadership certainly has a case to answer for in terms of innocent people that have died as a result of its military actions. At the same time, however, a lot of the violence in Iraq has been simmering for hundreds of years. As a dictator, Saddam was able to keep a lid on this anomosity between different religiouc groups (Islamic Sects) through fear. He basically knocked off anybody who could oppose him and scared the rest with his presence. The US Invasion (and the subsequent fall of Saddam) merely allowed for these old problems to rise to the surface, making violence between these groups possible. As such, I believe that simple arguments that place the blame all in America's lap are rather fascile.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We need a war crimes trial against the George W. Bush Administration." Not the entire US government?

We were told WMDs were the reason = a lie. " Islamic terror help establish those lies and Saddam's big mouth too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why does Islam produce such mindless violence?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why does Islam produce such mindless violence?

Violence is not exclusive to Islam. All you have to do is look at history to see that all religions enjoy a bit of death and mayhem every now and often. Then again, there is a big difference between running somebody through with a pike and using modern weaponary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As a dictator, Saddam was able to keep a lid on this anomosity between different religiouc groups (Islamic Sects) through fear.

Trouble is Saddam's influence, not to mention his ambitions, went waaaaaaayyy beyond Iraq.

Bribing UN officials and European journos, basically making oil a WMD.

Sponsoring Palestinian terrorists.

Harboring the likes of Abu Nidal.

Using bio chem weapons on the Kurds.

Waging war against Iran.

Invading Kuwait.

I always kinda liked the angle that the Canadian writer Mark Steyn took. To paraphrase a quip he made when commenting on the Oscars ceremony that featured Mikey Moore denouncing Pres Bush - basically, the US decided it was time that Saddam receive a kind of lifetime achievment award for the various roles he had played upon the world stage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why does Islam produce such mindless violence? That's got to be the most inane comment here today. The Christians invaded Iraq, remember. If Israel attacks Iran it will be the Jews who do the attacking, just as they did in Lebanon and Gaza, with Christian weapons. The number of deaths posted here is way too low. Try 1,320,110. See:http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq/iraqdeaths.html Spare us: don't blame Muslim women and children for being in the line of Jewish and Christian fire.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We need a war crimes trial against the George W. Bush Administration.

And of course you also mean to include those in the U.S. government who voted for the placement of troops in Iraq like Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, etc, etc, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TexasAggie you are right, why stop there? all people who voted for Bush a part of the crime. for letting their sons and daughters die in an illegal war while the "al qaida" were in other countries that have WMD's like Iran and Pakistan (, Afghanistan)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Christians invaded Iraq...the Jews who do the attacking, just as they did in Lebanon and Gaza...

LIBERTAS, if you'd like, we can go ahead and list all the conflicts occurring in the world involving Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. But one thing all of these conflicts have in common is they involve Islam. Could it be that Islam is the problem? Perhaps your politics don't allow you see the obvious.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TexasAggie you are right, why stop there? all people who voted for Bush a part of the crime. for letting their sons and daughters die in an illegal war while the "al qaida" were in other countries that have WMD's like Iran and Pakistan (, Afghanistan)

And why stop there? The rest of the world should just invade the US and take it out so it forever stops its bloodthirsty ways.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

dennis0bauer, I agree, why stop there? All those countries that supported the U.S. (Britain, Australia, etc.) by sending its troops into Iraq and those who voted those governments into power should also be brought up on charges of war crimes, too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Helter_Skelter said:

...we can go ahead and list all the conflicts occurring in the world involving Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. But one thing all of these conflicts have in common is they involve Islam. Could it be that Islam is the problem? Perhaps your politics don't allow you see the obvious.

Comparing a conflict where Islam is involve by getting murdered for their beliefs, as was done during the Crusades, to a conflict in which they are the perpetrators shows and extreme lack of intellectual reasoning.

Next these right wing kooks will want to blame people for getting burned at the stake for being involved in a "conflict." It takes real brains to be catty enough to compare involvement, which can simply mean being attacked, to conflicts in which a party is the aggressor. What hubris it must take to place blame on a religion simply predicated on being involved, by proxy of living in a region under attack.

Could those that would blame the country or region attacked for "involvement" in a conflict be a better example of using god to advance their agenda of evil?

This thread is about the over 87,000 people who died in Iraq. Common decency would dictate that those who were truly innocent, at a minimum be given proper sympathy and respect. Bigots will use every opportunity they can to denigrate people different then themselves.

If we have learned anything from the bigotry on these threads it is that only American, only Christian life is valuable to them.

Not only is this mass loss of life tragic but we also sacrificed the victory over the Taliban for such a pursuit of folly. The Taliban regrouped insurgence into both Afghanistan and Pakistan is a direct result of troops diverted into Iraq. At least 87,215, but more likely well over the AP estimate of 110,00 Iraqis died, well over 5,000 U.S. troops died, and America ends up with more terrorists wanting to do harm to America then before 9.11.2001. Great plan conservatives. Conservatives can't protect our country and they can't manage the U.S economy; what will Americans let them get their hands on next?

Oh, and Helter_Skelter, since you said "But one thing all of these conflicts have in common is they involve Islam." could you please use your convoluted explanations to describe Islams involvement in both WWI and WWII? I need a good laugh. Add a little blame on their part and you will have me rolling on the floor.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cleo, thank-you for your wit today. Sadly the humour is entwined with more facts and figures of death from "liberated" Iraq...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

telep,

Does this anul the "V I C T O R Y", or are you going with Superlib and comparing your bodycount to the other guy's?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"those who voted those governments into power"

All those governments acted against the will of the people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This news make me well angry. The illegal war has caused this wicked genocide. Bu8sh should be executed as a war criminial for what he done to Iraq and that.

Saddam Hussein were much less of a "bad Guy" than Bush and didn't commit genocide like American troops done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And why stop there? The rest of the world should just invade the US and take it out so it forever stops its bloodthirsty ways.

Yes, yes. No doubt we have another rational, humanitarian 'pacifist' speaking here - projecting onto the entire world his or her own bizarre and violent obsession with America.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Superlib - "Well, if you choose to ignore the cost of doing nothing from the time Saddam took power to the time his sons finally died and the civil war finished, I supposed the choice of invading does look pretty bad."

Here's yet another war supporter who is pretending to care for the oppressed Iraqis.

Where's the sobbing violins when we need them? They would be about the only things that might make Superlib's crocodile tears believable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is all Bush and Cheney's fault. The former dicatator of Iraq ( can't mention his name here ) should have been left alone to continue to run Iraq into the ground and thumb his nose at the U.N. from his many luxurious palaces.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Over 80 000 dead. Muslim on Muslim violence.

Of course, when it was Iraq versus Iran the number reached 1 000 000 dead.

Why, I ask, does Islam produce mindless violence of such staggering magnitude?

Over 80 percent of the world's refugees are Mohammedans.

Islamist groups are currently at war with Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Orthodox Christians, pantheists, officially atheist regimes like China and of course, other Muslims.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "The former dicatator of Iraq ( can't mention his name here ) should have been left alone to continue to run Iraq into the ground and thumb his nose at the U.N. from his many luxurious palaces."

Republicans are going for a trifecta here - Sarge, you are ANOTHER Republican who is pretending he cares about oppressed Iraqis.

Give it a rest will you? You are insulting your own intelligence by attempting to come across as if you care for Iraqis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Muslim on Muslim violence."

Hmmm...that wasn't happening under Saddam?

"Of course, when it was Iraq versus Iran the number reached 1 000 000 dead."

That war lasted eight years and wasn't a simple insurgency - it was fought with tanks and helicopters supplied by the west, and of course the Americans, who were supplying both sides of the conflict. These stats are for one year, and we haven't yet seen Iraqi government stats for 2006 - the bloodiest of all.

The rest of your post is just a rant about Islam, with no bearing on the topic, which is that in 2005, the Iraqi government registered 87,215 deaths from various attacks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

teleprompter - "Over 80 000 dead. Muslim on Muslim violence."

Time to duck and cover - Republican "logic" is raining down thick and fast. :-)

teleprompter - quick question: U.S. soldiers and military have been responsible for many, many Iraqi deaths.

Tell us - how exactly does the violence unleashed by the U.S. military equate to "Muslim violence"?

(Hint: It doesn't.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The rest of your post is just a rant about Islam, with no bearing on the topic, which is that in 2005, the Iraqi government registered 87,215 deaths from various attacks."

Breathtaking. What sort of 'partisanship' so thoroughly grips the mind that it substitutes in for since?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whoops, my mistake. Apologies.

Two and a half years.

Thanks for not addressing anything else, however, Victory boy!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I must admit it's fun to watch the pro-invasion crowd get all touchy about the body-count, their own, and of course that of Saddam's.

It's like seeing to mass-murders arguing in their prison cell's about who murdered the most, using which means and of course, who did it best.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SushiSake3: "You are insulting your own intelligence by attempting to come across as if you care about Iraqis"

This, from someone who thinks that leaving the former dictator of Iraq to continue to run the country into the ground and thumb his nose at the U.N. from his many luxurious palaces would have been better than liberating Iraq.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I must admit it's fun to watch the anti-liberation crowd make fools of themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts, it's a tough call between Bush and Saddam re: who killed the most.

The thing that turns me off is that for the American pro-war crowd, if it's someone else who loses their life/family, then it's all OK.

But teleprompter blaming Muslims is really scraping the bottom of the fantasy barrel, ha ha.

It's like watching someone trying to kick up a storm by one-hand clapping. :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "This, from someone who thinks that leaving the former dictator of Iraq to continue to run the country into the ground and thumb his nose at the U.N. from his many luxurious palaces would have been better than liberating Iraq."

Sarge, your desperation to justify your support of a wrong-headed invasion keeps getting funnier.

The U.S. invasion killed even more people than Saddam would have using far better weaponry.

"and thumb his nose at the U.N. from his many luxurious palaces would have been better than liberating Iraq."

U.N. sanctions had crippled Saddam's ability to do anything really nasty. I know you know that, but I understand why you would ignore it in your arguments.

Add to that, the war will ultimately cost your nation close on $3 TRILLION. That kind of money would have been really, really handy now that we have a global recession.

But you - and others - seem to think that pouring that kind of money into a war in a country that upwards of 60% of Americans couldn't even point to on a map was a good idea.

Thankfully, the majority of Americans also thought it was real stupid, hence the GOP's thrashing we just saw last November. :-)

.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Madverts, it's a tough call between Bush and Saddam re: who killed the most"

That would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Coalition fire is responsible for the deaths of, what, a few thousand people, including those scumbags who would torture and kill SushSake3 without hesitation or remorse, whle the former dictator of Iraq is responsible for the deaths of what, several hundred thousand, if not over a million people.

Get with the program, SushiSake3.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What happened in post-Saddam Iraq is not much different than what happened in Algeria in the 90's, where Islamofascists killed between 150,000 - 200,000 of their fellow Mohammedans.

And over in Syria, as recently as the early 80's, Alawite Muslims killed 20,000 Sunnis Muslims in the town of Hama. This was one operation alone. Assad basically flattened the place.

It's so easy refuting some people here. They know nothing about the region or the players.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - "Coalition fire is responsible for the deaths of, what, a few thousand people"

Ehhrrr...no Sarge.

Bush and the Neocon's invasion unleashed violence and opened up the gates of hell - (in this case, sectarian violence) that killed hundreds of thousands.

Like Bush, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. probably barely personally killed anyone, but they were responsible for the decisions that leds to many, many deaths.

Ditto for Bush and co.

But I know that's a fact you know but are conveniently ignoring because it would crush your argument if you acknowledged it.

Get with the program Sarge.

The majority of your countryfolk got with the program when they threw the GOP out of power last November.

Why are you still sounding like a broken record stuck somewhere around 2005?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's a neo-con?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Erhrrr...no Sarge"

Er, yes, SushiSake3. Unless you have proof that coalition fire killed more than a few thousand people ( you don't ). You're confusing coalition fire with the scumbags' fire.

Heck, SushSake3, even your hero President Obama praised U.S. troops for giving the Iraqis a wonderful gift. Get with the program.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What incredible arrogance we are reading here from the anti-Bush, anti-Americans. Bush & the Americans are seen as being totally responsible for these deaths because they “opened the gates to hell” as somebody melodramatically put it. The coalition forces are responsible for a percentage of all the deaths, we all know that, but the people of Iraq are not children, you cannot talk about them as though they are so stupid that they have self control. They are killing each other, Muslim killing Muslim for their own reasons. The Americans are not giving them the weapons, not encouraging them to kill, they are doing that to themselves without help from anybody except perhaps a little help from fellow Muslims in Iran. Give credit (even though it be negative credit) where it is due, the Muslims don’t need any help from none Muslims to kill each other & they are responsible for their own actions. Had this bipartisan killing stopped then the US would have no reason (excuse) to still be there. I have no love for the US & its actions & believe the war on Iraq was a serious mistake, but I will not blame the US for what the are not responsible for, though I will never miss a chance to point the finger when they are responsible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

grafton: How come the mass killings didn'T happen until the illegal invasion happened. When Saddam was in power he kept relative peace in Iraq and only lobbed a few missiles at Israel in retaliation for American genocide in the gulf war.

Iraq under Saddam was a far safer, richer and better place than after the destruction by the gung ho Americans. I saw it on Michael Moores film like, it can'T be disputed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge,

You have been saying exactly the same things since the Iraqi war began. There are web bots that are more creative than you. It would not have mattered the outcome of any facet of the Iraqi war; you would still be saying the same exact things you said since the war began. Rumsfeld and Bush programmed you over 6 years ago and you haven't missed a beat.

"Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war."

Donald Rumsfeld, on liberals who try to take the fun out of war.

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist."

Conservative Hero: Donald Rumsfeld

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What a big screw up Bush and Rumsfield are responsible for. No exit strategy, no viable proof of WMDs and then removing the one factor that kept sunni and shiite apart. Of course they are responsible. Freedom if it is so important, which was the last reason to invade, should have been given to the Kuwaitis after G H Bush liberated that country. No the stupid Bushies couldn't think that one through. Use the 9-11 failure to scare the crap out of America to build up a private army with tax payers money. Majority of Iraqis polled say they were better off under Saddam than post invasion. Majority of Americans polled say that Iraq was a mistake.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge at 08:22 PM JST - 24th April I must admit it's fun to watch the anti-liberation crowd make fools of themselves.

Yep those anti-liberation folks are real silly....

But you can not dodge no-WMD crowd. Now btw when did they find those mobile labs and all those stock piles of WMD Sarge?

I wonder if Bush is going to go look for it himself? LOL!!!

teleprompter at 09:29 PM JST - 24th April What's a neo-con?

My my teleprompter do you not read the replies folks post when you ask a question? This is the second time you have asked the same darn question......Okay let us try this again.....

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that supports using U.S. power, including military force, to bring democracy and human rights to other countries, seeing this as virtuous or even morally obligatory. In addition, unlike traditional conservatives, neoconservatives are comfortable with a minimally-bureaucratic welfare state; and, while generally supportive of free markets, they are willing to interfere for overriding social purposes.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_196286.html

I like this one myself

Slang - Crusading republican.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=neocon

http://zfacts.com/p/253.html

This list will give an idea of who are the Neo-Cons of today...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Neo-conservatives/list

I really do hope that this helps you to figure out who are your leaders and what your beliefs are suppose to be.

Do not forget we are here to help you....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush called his phony invasion of Iraq a crusade. Look it up.

Of course bush and his band of corrupt losers are responsible for the hundreds of thousands of kids and women who have been killed as a result of the invasion based on lies and more lies. Iraq was far better off than now, and with many, many more people. The usual sad crew of bush apologists want to believe that a house burns down by itself, not by dousing it with gas and applying a blow torch, which is what bush did to Iraq. And what has this accomplished, nothing. Traded one dictator for another. Made one corrupt government out of another. Bush and Cheney's crony capitalists buddies made out like bandits however.

The angry loons of the right, the losers in the last election, have been consistently wrong on the phony invasion since day one. No reason to think now that the mass murder that the bush/cheney administration committed, along with torture of course, would be treated any differently. Its just their way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

[Iraq under Saddam was a far safer, richer and better place than after the destruction by the gung ho Americans. I saw it on Michael Moores film like, it can'T be disputed.]

Haha. Yeah and there I thought your posts were serious. Now I understand. Great AlffromWapping. I needed a laugh. Thanks for that bit.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As usual, when the phony invasion cheerleaders are confronted with the truth, they get limp and useless. Its just their way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Iraq posed no threat to the U.S. when we invaded. They posed no threat to any other nation when we invaded. It does not matter whether the Iraqis are in better shape now or before the war. Iraq was a sovereign nation and it violates the rights of nations to be autonomous. The U.S. has made the sovereign argument numerous times throughout history. Now the conservatives violated the sovereignty of nations principle. We will have to live with that shame and will not be able to use the argument to support that honorable principle for the foreseeable future.

There is definitely a problem with a person's logic who tries to say we have the right to determine what is best for another nation's citizens and carry our will out by force. It was up to the Iraqi's to determine their future. Sarge has absolutely no proof that the Iraqi people would not have ousted Saddam themselves and in doing so saved a lot of lives in the process as opposed to our armed intervention of a sovereign nation, which did not pose a threat to any other nation, yet caused the death directly or indirectly of over 100,000 people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good Donkey,

your point will be lost on the winger community. Here is why . . .

Here are the big issues for normal people: the war, the economy, the environment, mending fences with our enemies and allies, and the rule of law.

And here's the list of Republican obsessions since President Obama took office: that his birth certificate is supposedly fake, he uses a teleprompter too much, he bowed to a Saudi guy, Europeans like him, he gives inappropriate gifts, his wife shamelessly flaunts her upper arms, and he shook hands with Hugo Chavez and slipped him the nuclear launch codes.

Do these sound like the concerns of a healthy, vibrant political party?

It's sad what's happened to the Republicans. They used to be the party of the big tent; now they're the party of the sideshow attraction, a socially awkward group of mostly white people who speak a language only they understand. Like Trekkies, but paranoid.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium

True that!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The wingers and the lefties will continue this tread forever and a day while the rest of us get on with our own lives. ... now where's a thread I can really bash my pet peeve out on the keyboard...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

thread.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bushlover,

this reminds of a quote from dylan . . .

"The sun's not yellow, its chicken!" — Bob Dylan

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The body count is more than 87,000 It's probably 200,000.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Maintaining Peace with superior firepower really doesn't do the job !!! Hmmmmmmm !!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Saddam Hussein terrorized Iran, Kuwait, the Kurdish and his own people. His sons seemed to be potentially even worse. The world could not tolerate him having weapons of mass destruction. He was given every opportunity for ten years after his invading army in Kuwait was soundly beaten in a few weeks in 1991 and pushed back over its border, to be open and prove to the UN he no longer had WMD's or the means to make them but he chose to obfuscate. The world via the UN introduced economic sanctions on Iraq and as the years passed even they could be seen by the UN to be undermining the health and welfare of the 25 million Iraqi's, while Suddam and his cronies lived in absolute opulence. Saddam and his two sons were always going to be a major threat to stability, peace and security in the Middle East. Australian SAS were the first troops to enter Iraq in 2003 followed by the US and British forces. The war lasted a mere 22 days with modest loss of life. The greatest tragedy was never the military invasion to overthrow Saddam's regime, but the personal decision by the US civil administrator in Iraq, against the advice of the US military, to disband the Iraq military. That is what cost Iraq most of the 88,000 civilian casualties and numerous serious injuries. It has caused a furore ever since in military circles in the US. Remember the US lost over 4,000 young soldiers and suffered numerous permanent injuries as a consequence too as a result of this injudicious decision by one civilian autocrat. Society choose to succeed or fail. The US, Britain and Australia have given Iraqis the opportunity succeed or fail. Remember 90% of Iraqis took the opportunity to vote at the last national elections - that is about double the percentage that turn out in Britain and the US to vote. In Australia 96% turn out to vote, that is why we are the free-est, most prosperous, best educated and fairest and most stable country on the planet. Australia's involvement in removing Hussein was to enable Iraq to be free and democratic and to choose to succeed. Our troops suffered no deaths and were respected by Iraqis generally for treating them with kindness, sincerity and respect. Fortunately, it seems that Iraq has now sorted itself out politically, the indiscriminate insurgent bombings have stopped by and large and it can be all blue sky now. It is up to the Iraqi's.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites