Iraqi Civilian Casualties Apparently Not Worth Counting
Friday, December 12th, 2003 - 5:23am
Now, one thing the article doesn't state is if they were also collecting data on the situations in which these civilians were dying. Just raw casualty numbers doesn't tell the whole story, as casualties could easily be due more to actions on either side, or at least spun that way.
But still, it is intriguing that they've been ordered to stop tracking this.
Not really. The West has turned a blind eye to Iraqi deaths for well over a decade.
God knows it wasn''t an issue when the topic of liberation came up.
I started my own blog so when I feel the need to make an ass out of myself, I won't have as far to go.
So far, at least, we''ve killed fewer than Saddam...
I guess now we''ll never know in the long run.
What we are now calling ""insurgents"", Saddam called Shiites.
Actually, what we are now calling ""insurgents"", Saddam called ""employees""... No one is happier than the Shi''ites that Saddam is gone
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
The shi''ites aren''t exactly fond of us, either, especially in regards to talks of a secular government being formed in Baghdad.
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce