Comment Re:This proves what is already known. (Score -1, Offtopic) 254
Actually, the 500 shells contained quite deadly Sarin gas, despite David Kay's insistence that they were less dangerous that what "under his kitchen sink". I saw his testimony before the Senate Science Committee, and he looked and acted like a partisan hack -- And was laughed at and mocked for his insistence that liquid drano is more dangerous than 12 year old sarin warheads. He even refused to achnowledge that Sarin Gas is a WMD, which is exactly what he said it was on a Frontline interview that aired just a few days before the CIA report was released. This was partisan dishonesty at its finest.
"It doesn't make it right, but there was no credible link between Saddam and *Al Qaeda.*"
You mean "Aside from the Captured documents detailing thier relationship with Al Queada". Just avoid all of the evidence, and boom it there is no relationship. But then again, we didn't go to war with Iraq becuase it had a relationship with Al Queada. We went to war with Iraq because it was run by a man crazy and stupid enough to help them out.
"Also, it is not the Iraqis will to hang Saddam. The trial was pre-rigged and you know it. I'm not saying what he did was right, but if you're going to accuse a man of crimes against humanity, do it in the Hague where he at least has a fair trial."
Let me guess like OJ, he didn't do it RIGHT? It was someone else who terrorized his people for decades. Even though he was the absolute dictator of Iraq, he was jsut an innocent helpless bystandard? RIGHT? Look sometimes someone who is so guilty is just guility. There is no amount of impartiality can overcome it. Besides the Crime was commited in Iraq, and the victims were by and large iraqi's. I can't see how the Hauge has more jurisdiction over Saddam then the duly elected Government of Iraq.
"The fatality rate is something along the lines of thousands a month for both US and Iraqis. Not to mention the number of attacks are being scrubbed before they go out to press. Because of this, in the 3 years we've been in Iraq, we've caused more deaths than Saddam has combined."
By this time in the Civil War we lost 500,000 soldiers, not including civilians. By this time in WW2 we had lost 200,000 soldiers. We have lost about 2,000 soldiers so far in this war due to combat. (the rest were a mix of accidents and suicides). If we bring in Civilian figures, by this time in WW2, 26 million were lost, and that was a much larger percentage of the population since we have more than doubled our size in 70 years. As the total number kiled in this war, the worst estimate I have ever seen is 200,000, though that figure is generally considered egregiously wrong, and even it falls short of the Million minimun figure for Saddam, and I say minimum, because the iraqi government beleives its more like 8 million form its sampling of the iraqi secret police's death squad logs. But onto your figures, you are still more like to die in Detriot than in a random place in Iraq, as the overall mortality rate is far lower across the country that it is there.
"It doesn't make it right, but there was no credible link between Saddam and *Al Qaeda.*"
You mean "Aside from the Captured documents detailing thier relationship with Al Queada". Just avoid all of the evidence, and boom it there is no relationship. But then again, we didn't go to war with Iraq becuase it had a relationship with Al Queada. We went to war with Iraq because it was run by a man crazy and stupid enough to help them out.
"Also, it is not the Iraqis will to hang Saddam. The trial was pre-rigged and you know it. I'm not saying what he did was right, but if you're going to accuse a man of crimes against humanity, do it in the Hague where he at least has a fair trial."
Let me guess like OJ, he didn't do it RIGHT? It was someone else who terrorized his people for decades. Even though he was the absolute dictator of Iraq, he was jsut an innocent helpless bystandard? RIGHT? Look sometimes someone who is so guilty is just guility. There is no amount of impartiality can overcome it. Besides the Crime was commited in Iraq, and the victims were by and large iraqi's. I can't see how the Hauge has more jurisdiction over Saddam then the duly elected Government of Iraq.
"The fatality rate is something along the lines of thousands a month for both US and Iraqis. Not to mention the number of attacks are being scrubbed before they go out to press. Because of this, in the 3 years we've been in Iraq, we've caused more deaths than Saddam has combined."
By this time in the Civil War we lost 500,000 soldiers, not including civilians. By this time in WW2 we had lost 200,000 soldiers. We have lost about 2,000 soldiers so far in this war due to combat. (the rest were a mix of accidents and suicides). If we bring in Civilian figures, by this time in WW2, 26 million were lost, and that was a much larger percentage of the population since we have more than doubled our size in 70 years. As the total number kiled in this war, the worst estimate I have ever seen is 200,000, though that figure is generally considered egregiously wrong, and even it falls short of the Million minimun figure for Saddam, and I say minimum, because the iraqi government beleives its more like 8 million form its sampling of the iraqi secret police's death squad logs. But onto your figures, you are still more like to die in Detriot than in a random place in Iraq, as the overall mortality rate is far lower across the country that it is there.
