Bobert - Just to clarify things;

"Going back to my original post about Iraqi deaths, I *did not* qualify civialian verses military."

Your original post - "Why they had to kill off 100,000 innocent people and reduce the country to chaos is way beyond comprhension."

Now the adjective "innocent" when applied to people during a war, is normally applied to the civilian population. Those serving in the armed forces are normally referred to as combatants. Unless you believe that that distinction is a convenient categorisation - anyone in the Iraqi military who stood to and defended this regime can in no way be described as "innocent" in view of the extent of this regime's depredations revealled with the recent uncovering of the mass graves in Iraq. The bulk of Saddam's forces however threw off their uniforms and returned to civilian life, those who then continued the fight did so as non-innocent civilians, but thankfully most just returned home and stayed out of it.

I asked you to susbtantiate your figure of (Wait for it Bobert) 100,000 dead Iraqi's (Yes that was MY question) and you admitted that your estimate was based on 30,000 bombs dropped and applied a factor of 3 Iraqi's per bomb (incidently that works out at 90,000 Bobs - not 100,000)

In response I supplied figures for civilian casualties (innocents) and quoted the sources reporting those figures - Note Bobert, just in case you are a slow learner, or a poor reader, the figures 1250 - 1450 did not come from ME but from the BBC, various reporters for other networks including arabic stations, Ba'ath Party spokesmen and Coalition Central Command spokesmen. Just in case that has not sunk in, here are my exact words:

"Civilian casualties were put at around the 1,250 - 1,450 mark by most of the worlds press, Iraqi sources in Baghdad and by Coalition sources."

You then made the followind admission:
"Yeah, T-ster, I'll admit that I did pluck the 100,000 deaths out of "thin air" ..." - and invite me to "come up with a *realistic* number of total *total causualties* (military and civilian), heck, I'll be glad to use that figure."

I declined the invitation saying - "No Bobert, I will not pick a number, I prefer to quote from some source that can be verified and has some explanation of the composition of it's figures."

GUEST 22 Jul 03 - 01:43 PM provided a link to "Iraqbodycount.net counts the true human cost of war, not just "Our Side"

Thanking above Guest for the link I noted - "A read of how they compile their figures will also show that the human cost also includes Iraqi civilians killed by Iraqi civilians. It also lists all Iraqi deaths from the point in time the day the statue fell as civilian deaths, including the Iraqi soldiers who carried on fighting in civilian clothes. This sites worst case puts total civilian deaths at 7,782 - somewhat short of Boberts 100,000 figure. In that site links are provided - go through them there is one based in New Zealand that provides a breakdown." Had you bothered to go to the New Zealand based site you would have got a breakdown of:
- Iraqi military personnel killed and injured;
- Iraqi civilians killed and injured;
- US forces killed and injured;
- UK forces killed and injured;
- Other nationalities killed and injured.

You then ask; Bobert - 24 Jul 03 - 07:06 PM
Ohhhh, and I'm still waitin' fir yer number of Iraqi deaths. If you wanta stick with your "thin air" number of 1400, that's fine with me, I'll use that and I'll be sure to credit you for that info...

Don't put words into my mouth Bobert, anyone reading through this thread or this post will clearly see that any figure I have put forward, I have supplied information relating to where that figure came from - Dearly wish that you did the same, as opposed to bigoted, over emotional and hysterical claptrap.

Bobert's Lies:
1. By Admission
"Why they had to kill off 100,000 innocent people and reduce the country to chaos is way beyond comprhension."
2. Proven
"...but thankfully according to Teribus only 1400 were killed."

Seems to me Bobert that you feel perfectly entitled to fabricate things based on absolutely damn all, and to continually repeat things that you know to be totally false - and you've got the brass neck to criticise George W - all his decisions have at least been based on some form of information.

Latest Bobert Sensationalist Rubbish:
"I heard that Bush is gonna have the heads shrunken and put up on sticks outside to the White House."

You seem to be extremely selective on what you hear and want to believe. You obviously do want to believe it Bobert otherwise you would not have repeated what you heard "on the street". And if that is the sort of thing that people do say on the streets around you Bobert - I'd advise you to move, mind you it does explain your total irrationality.