Where is the outcry?
 

And, more torture is going on now than when Saddam was in power.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

OzOne wrote in message ...
The latest fatalities bring the number of US military casualties in
Iraq since the March 2003 invasion to 2,718, according to an AFP count
based on Pentagon figures.

- AFP


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

Where is the outcry?
 

Good point. Perhaps it would be better to let Saddam
run the country again. He could start by killing several
hundred thousand people to regain control, and kill
maybe as few as 10,000 a year to maintain order.

Capt. JG wrote:
And, more torture is going on now than when Saddam was in power.

OzOne wrote
The latest fatalities bring the number of US military casualties in
Iraq since the March 2003 invasion to 2,718, according to an AFP count
based on Pentagon figures.

Where is the outcry?
 

On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 11:03:11 +1000, %n wrote:


Oh BTW death toll in Iraq has now topped 45,000

Perhaps the cure is worse than the disease. In perspective, since 1970,
all of terrorism victims, worldwide, are less than 35,000. Oh, and
we have lost more Americans fighting terrorism since 9/11, than we lost on
9/11.

Where is the outcry?
 

A better point... we had no business attacking Iraq, while pretending that
they had WMDs.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart" wrote in message
ps.com...

Good point. Perhaps it would be better to let Saddam
run the country again. He could start by killing several
hundred thousand people to regain control, and kill
maybe as few as 10,000 a year to maintain order.

Capt. JG wrote:
And, more torture is going on now than when Saddam was in power.

OzOne wrote
The latest fatalities bring the number of US military casualties in
Iraq since the March 2003 invasion to 2,718, according to an AFP count
based on Pentagon figures.

Where is the outcry?
 

OzOne wrote:

Good point. Perhaps it would be better to let Saddam
run the country again. He could start by killing several
hundred thousand people to regain control, and kill
maybe as few as 10,000 a year to maintain order.

Maybe if you'd left things alone then he wouldn't need such methods.

What was the reason for the invasion again...you seem to have become
lost in the Bushmire.

Hey maybe if you didn't install him in the first place.

Have you ever actually read anything about Saddam?
Try this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

Oh BTW death toll in Iraq has now topped 45,000

This is lower than under Saddam. However, I see your point
he probably would have killed about the same number of people
or perhaps 2-3 times more during the same time frame. We might
have been better off leaving him in power and letting him
continue to kill his people.

You can be either for or against genocide. And the other option,
yours, is to ignore it.

Stalin is proof that this sort of government is stable as long as
people are kept in fear.

Where is the outcry?
 

I guess we're for it. We're not invading Darfur.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Bart" wrote in message
ups.com...

OzOne wrote:

Good point. Perhaps it would be better to let Saddam
run the country again. He could start by killing several
hundred thousand people to regain control, and kill
maybe as few as 10,000 a year to maintain order.

Maybe if you'd left things alone then he wouldn't need such methods.

What was the reason for the invasion again...you seem to have become
lost in the Bushmire.

Hey maybe if you didn't install him in the first place.

Have you ever actually read anything about Saddam?
Try this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

Oh BTW death toll in Iraq has now topped 45,000

This is lower than under Saddam. However, I see your point
he probably would have killed about the same number of people
or perhaps 2-3 times more during the same time frame. We might
have been better off leaving him in power and letting him
continue to kill his people.

You can be either for or against genocide. And the other option,
yours, is to ignore it.

Stalin is proof that this sort of government is stable as long as
people are kept in fear.

Where is the outcry?
 

I think the American public would still be supportive of the war if those
were the reasons. I know I would. I don't like being lied to. Not sure if
you saw it, but one of the exerpts from Woodwards book has Bush and one of
his friends joking about "doing" Iran next, and then joking about Cuba being
next. I don't see how any of this is funny. People dying isn't funny.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

OzOne wrote in message ...
On 4 Oct 2006 06:40:32 -0700, "Bart"
scribbled thusly:

Have you ever actually read anything about Saddam?
Try this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein

Oh BTW death toll in Iraq has now topped 45,000

This is lower than under Saddam. However, I see your point
he probably would have killed about the same number of people
or perhaps 2-3 times more during the same time frame. We might
have been better off leaving him in power and letting him
continue to kill his people.

You can be either for or against genocide. And the other option,
yours, is to ignore it.

Stalin is proof that this sort of government is stable as long as
people are kept in fear.

It would have been wonderful if the reason Bush gave for invading Iraq
was humanitarian.....at least he'd have an excuse...


BTW have you ever read anything about Saddam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein


Oz1...of the 3 twins.

I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.