A New Report about Iraqis killed since the invasion: Moving on is impossib

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2003%20Opinion%20Editorials/November/21o/A%20New%20Report%20about%20Iraqis%20killed%20since%20the%20invasion%20Moving%20on%20is%20impossible%20By%20Bill%20Gibson.htm

In a new report MEDACT, the London-based affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), has published estimates of the number of Iraqis killed since the invasion in March: between 20,000 and 55,000 people including at least 8,000 civilians with upwards of 20,000 civilian casualties.

IPPNW/PSR spokesperson Dr, Victor Sidel of the Montefiore Medical Center and Albert Einstein College of Medicine and an advisor on the report, said "This authoritative report, based on exhaustive efforts to ascertain data on the death, disability, and damage caused by the attack on Iraq, documents the health, environmental and societal consequences of waging an ill advised and illegal war using ferociously destructive modern weaponry.”

Tens of thousands of men, women and children killed and maimed in an ill-advised and illegal war. But just over half of all Americans still think that the Bush Administration led attack on Iraq was the right thing to do.

But there were no WMDs. No proof whatsoever that Iraq was collaborating with al-Qaida let alone planning any terrorist attacks on America. No justifiable case that a preemptive self-defense was needed.

And unless you’re really gullible, it’s hard to believe that the US and Britain attacked Iraq to remove a tyrant who was mistreating his people, a tyrant who was a danger to the international community.

<snip>

[joanski01]

1. The people of the US of A

were suckered into this. And all the little chickenshits were scared. And still are, for that matter. They don't seem to care who we kill, but please just don't hurt me.

[peterh]

2. the cynical side of me can see Rummy waving this off…

with something like….well, it falls within the range of acceptable collateral damage….heck, Saddam would’ve killed that many himself this year anyway…next question….:grr:

[54anickel]

3. Some guy on Faux said that a few days ago in discussion on the cost of war

Claiming it would have been much more expensive to continue to contain Saddam than going to war (course who the hell knows how much more will cost!) Interviewer let him go on and on about the numbers. Finally ask him, but what about the cost of lives?
Yep, Saddam would have killed many more if he was left in power, and we have had less than 500 KIA. Didn't even bother to address the multitude of maimed casualties on either side.

Seems the world for this cabal simply boils down to dollars and cents.