Old Guy wrote:


Peg:

I would like to know how many of the between 65,000 and 120,000 dead in the '91 war were civilian.
--I think the estimate is somewhere around 85,000. But as I said, sources vary on the exact count.


I can't find where you said heedlessly but I want to know where the estimate of millions being killed comes from. I think it is a conclusion, a guess made by people that are looking for a reason to protest which is being repeated over and over. Say it enough times and you will have the citizens of Iraq believing it.
--well, seeing as the military has plans to unleash firepower amounting to ALL of what was used in the Gulf War during the furst THREE DAYS of any future attack on Iraq, I would guess millions is a pretty safe estimate.


It would be foolish for me to say no innocent people will be killed but I have faith that the military is doing everything possible to avoid civilian casualties. Of course Saddam will be doing everything he can to cause civilian casualties which he can blame on us.
--at least you admit you're being foolish. And why should Saddam blame "us" for inflicting civilian casualties pn his own people? Why does the United States need to solve Iraq's problems? There are plenty of countries where tyrannical dictators are making life hell for their people. Venezuela, for example. Cuba is another. And many areas of Africa are in horribel shape. Why aren't we declaring war on them? Your logic in the statement above sems to be saying we need to attack Iraq to protect the Iraqi people. This is not the job of the US government.




Civilians will be dying even if nothing is done. After Saddam get more powerful will the dying cease? No, there will be a war sometime in the future that will cause even more civilian casualties.
--what war are you talking about? This is what I mean about you being vague.


I want to hear one anti-war protestor say that it is OK for the people living under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to suffer because we should not go to war with the Iraqi regime. They say they hate Saddam and they say the people are suffering but they never say it is OK for them to suffer. That it is in their best interest to suffer. They just go back to their "thousands of bombs being dropped on millions of innocent people" routine
--no one wants the people in Iraq to suffer but if the U.S> invades, it will be US inflicting the suffering. OUR bombs. If you care so much about the people in Iraq suffering, then why aren't you supporting a diplomatic solution? Answer: you've bought the war-mongering media hype, just like the government wanted you to.


As for Bush not getting the popular vote, the way our founding fathers designed the government, they included a thing called the Electoral College. The Electoral College allows people to win that do not get the majority vote. We cannot fool with any thing the founding fathers wrote can we?
--oh for pete's sake are you really this out of touch???? The electoral college had NOTHING to do with Bush getting "elected." It was a highly irregular and clearly illegal decision by the Supreme Court that did that.
And since you're askig, yes, I think it would be a fine idea to undo a fair amount of what our "founding fathers" did. They were rich white men who were really only looking out for rich white men like themselves.
But the main thing you need to know is that the "founding fathers" (I suppose it depends who you mean here) did not implement the electoral college...your grasp of history is shaky.

There were other states with issues like the hanging chad that were never recounted as many times as Florida so the total number of popular votes will never be known.
--actually, they were all accounted for but in the wake of 9-11 the media did not put a whole lot of focus on the story...funny, that.


Let's have some sources and facts to base our opinions on.
--when you start doing the same I'll be happy to oblige. You've offered no facts here and your description of our history is riddled with mistakes, vague mumbo-jumbo and contradictions.