Iraq body count

“We don’t do body counts”

General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

Norwegian newspapers report that 750 Iraqi soldiers have been killed in the battle for Najaf so far. There are no official numbers for how many civilians have been killed.

A site that tries to put together information about civilian casualties is the Iraq Body Count site. At the time of this post the site claims the minimum civilian casualties of the war so far has been 213, maximum 292 souls.

The site has published its methodology for gathering its causalities estimates.

35 thoughts on “Iraq body count”

  1. mike sheffield

    this body count doesnt even compare to saddams body count of his own people. the number of villages (including the people in it) he has destoryed will out number the number of iraqis killed by coalitioned forces. how can you speak your opposition so loudly when you are so ignorant of the truth. it is mind boggling, the only explantion for your moronic opposition, besides the obvious fact that you are an idiot, is that you have some type of political agenda. you can not peacefully ask a murderous madman with billions dollars and all the power he wants, to give it all up because it is the right thing to do. it is like asking an at large serial murder to turn himself in because it is the right thing to do. it wont happen! you make me want to vomit.

  2. Your argument is flawed. You seem to think that because Saddam is a bad guy, that gives the United States of America and its foes the right to do exactly what they want.

    US and its allies are taking the law in their own hands, acting outside of UN mandates, and against the will of many of its former allies, and – even more important – of the neighbouring Arabian nations (except one, which actually didn’t vote against the condemnation of the war, but rather refrained from voting).

    If you think the war in Iraq will bring any good to the people of Iraq, then you are naive. Lets hope you are right.

    I also think its important to look at the reasons for the war. It should be pretty obvious that if the US actually wanted the best for Iraq, they would have finished the job in 1991 and helped the uprising that was going on then, instead of moving out of Iraq and letting their “allies” in Iraq be killed by Saddam. It seems to me that former President Bush has a lot of blod on his hands for what happend after the Gulf war in Iraq.

  3. mike sheffield

    yes, it is no suprise that a antiwar posting contradicts itself. you bashed the administration for acting outside UN mandates and at the same time bashed bush sr. for “not finishing the job in 91”, which would have been a clear violation of UN mandates which stated we could push iraq out of neighboring countries, but not remove saddam. i guess violations of mandates from the international community are only acceptable when they valadate your point.

    you also contradicted yourself when you stated war is not good for iraq and then went on to say the best thing for iraq would have been for allied forces to have “finished the job” which means finish the war. so, im confused are you for or against war in iraq.

    please dont get me wrong, i am not a prowar milatant jerk. i am pro this war and i get steamed up when someone degards the obvious intentions of this war. which is to rid this country of a tyrant, who is a danger to us and the rest of the world. he has proven this many times and the only way to remove an unpeacful man is by unpeaceful means. the longer we stall with diplomacy, that will always fail in this situation, the more dangerous he will become.

    your point is contradictory and invalid, but what do i expect from an antiwar movement which mostly consist of white collage kids with dredlocks who still live off mommy an daddy’s nipple and only care about this war because it gives them a chance to yell in cops faces and turn over vehicles(how is that a peace movement). when they really only care about where they are going to score there next bag and they are led by washed up celebrities who only care about they war because this is there last chance to draw attention to themselves before they completely fizzle out.

    and yes i do think iraqis would be better off after this war. if you lived in iraq and posted your comment that you posted, you would have been exicuted. its funny how the right you have to speak out against this war, is in part taking place to give others the same right, but as long as your not oppressed the world is fine the way is is.

  4. It is interesting how you present yourself as having an intelligent and informed view on the current invasion of Iraq, yet at the same time you persue schoolyard name calling of the anti-war movement by characterizing protesters as drug induced white college kids. If you have been paying attention, you would notice that there are a lot more people involved in the anti-war movement than just collage age white people, and the rate of violent or property damage resulting from such protests is extremely small when you take into account the number of people (millions) taking part in protest in thousands of locations around the world.

    The way I view it, if we are a democratic nation which belives in the ideals of democracy, then it is our mandate to adhere to the majority opinion within the UN and we should have been pushing more on diplomacy to dispose the Iraqi regime within the UN. It was only a matter of time (much less time than it would have taken Saddam to develop and deploy a WMD to a target of the US or its allies under the UN inspectors noses) before the UN would have sanctioned an action against Saddam. But our willingness to defy the democratic nature of the UN is appalling to me, and I think that it will lose the US of a lot of credibilty in future international diplomatic relations.

    As for an independent body to attempt to keep a realistic count of civilian casualties, I think it is a good thing, becuase it has the opportunity to help keep the people that are for or against this war in check with the real costs of any war. I cannot see the position of someone who is pro-war but does not want to accept that there is always a very ugly face to such things as war.

  5. mike sheffield

    you just dont get! it was obvious to the administration and to most of us citizens of the US that diplomatic means was not going to work, it has never worked and the only headway anyone has ever made with iraq in the last twelve is with the war in 91. why should we waste our time entertaining joke of a nation countries, that think that they still hold clout world because they belong to the UN. as long as we keep pumping out hollywood they will forgive us.

    to call the antiwar movement the majority is a joke nobody buys, but if pumps you before you chain yourself to a state building, go head keep telling yourself that.

    oh yeah, meet me at the playground after school and we will settle this once and for all.

  6. Former President Bill Clinton disagrees, and a lot of other US citizens as well. So far the “allies” casualties hasn’t escalated to such heights that the uproar in the US has started, but if this turns into another Vietnam/Korea war, I am sure that it will.

    As for the world, I understand that the way of the Bushes/scrubs is to ridicule any opposite views, a way of discussing that you have so eloquently showcased for us all Mike. Whatever way you want to look at it, its a fact that the US is alienating itself to other countries right now.

  7. mike sheffield

    i would like to post my apology. i still hold to my view that president bush is handling the situation the best way possible, not the way both sides would like to see, but i think it is the best way POSSIBLE. im really not this aragant and cold, i just get steamed when citizens on my side of this topic do not voice their opinion as loudly as the opposition. i feel i hold the same opinion as most, but at the same time feel like im part of a tiny minority. i do love your message board. it allows us to have intelegent debate, but sometimes i do get carried away. what im trying to say is im sorry for being such a loud mouth. i do enjoy our discussions. this freedom to express my opinions against or for govermental actions is a freedom i love.

  8. Besides putting Saddam into power and supporting him, the U.S. handed him anthrax as well as a whole arsenol of goodies to play with as long as he stayed in line with the oil mafia. The United States knew before hand that Saddam was going to invade Kuwait, and it seems the entire gulf war was staged to happen. The U.S. government, or should I say the global corporatations, have spent a lot of money and resources putting in and taking out people in power all over the world. The United States has been involved in some conflict since 1892. Our hands are stained in the blood of millions and it is just too much it seems for people to fathom so they jump on the war wagon as they have done for over 100 years and never look back.

    The iraqi people should be the ones liberating themselves, but our sanctions have killed and weakened the people and THIS IS the reason why Saddam is still there. release the sanctions and the people will uprise, continue with the inspections, disarm saddam, and the people will resist and eventually overthrow.

    Will they want a democracy? is democracy truly that great when it is obvious that democracy has died long ago in america? you can argue till your blue in the face but when hundreds, and possibly even thousands to come, of innocent people are dying, women and children, we become the monsters, we are the evil ones. 1 life is not worth the deaths of innocent people no matter how you dice it.

  9. mike sheffield

    if your concern was with the innocent deaths, you should know that an iraqi uprising will result in many more deaths. i dont think UN sations had any thing to do with INNOCENT villages being gased.

    no govermental structure has ever been perfect, but i think it has proven itself pretty effective when stacked up against past world goverments. please post which govermental structure you think would be best for our country.

  10. Folks,

    1. The U.N. is more and more becoming irrelevent, particularly in such cases as this. Talk, talk, talk…and no results. Someone HAD to force the issue to guarantee that the Sadam Regime would comply with U.N. mandates that had not been met since 1991. Who was going to do it? New Zealand? The Ivory Coast? Japan? No other nation has the wherewithal to do what needed to be done. No other nation had the strength of character to what had to be done. France is too busy selling material to the Sadam Regime and trying to bully the rest of Europe. Europe appeased Hitler and paid the price. We should learn from history, not run from it.

    2. The war isn’t about oil. If it was, the oil fields would have been taken during the ’91 war. The war is also NOT about US territorial expansion. As Colin Powell said, “Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.”

    3. George Bush is the president. He won. The rest of you whiners need to get over it.

    4. I’m sure there were people who didn’t want to see us enter WW II. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. I don’t want the war. No rational person wants a war. But when when we, as a nation, are in a war it is our duty to the nation that guarantees us the liberty to disagree to NOT impede the swift victory so that the fewest amount of lives will be lost. Anything less than total support might make the war drag on causing more US and Iraqi deaths than need to happen.

  11. Hi Billy, first. US != The World.


    “1. The U.N. is more and more becoming irrelevent”

    I am sure that is the way the US president would spell it, but it is wrong. The content of the allegation is also wrong, just because the US has chosen to try to make UN irrelevant, does not automatically make it so.

    “Someone HAD to force the issue to guarantee that the Sadam Regime would comply with U.N. mandates that had not been met since 1991. Who was going to do it? New Zealand? The Ivory Coast? Japan?”

    Can the US force the issue for Israel and their breach of the UN resolutions? Or is it just an interesting point when dealing with Iraq?

    “France is too busy selling material to the Sadam Regime and trying to bully the rest of Europe.”

    Can you remember who gave Iraq and Saddam weapons (including chemical weapons) in another war in the middle east? It was not the french, not Germany, which country could it have been?

    “Europe appeased Hitler and paid the price. We should learn from history, not run from it.”

    Come on now, that is just pure ignorance.

    “2. The war isn’t about oil. If it was, the oil fields would have been taken during the ’91 war.”

    No, Bush Senior bailed out. The Kuwait war was about oil, and so is this war.

    “the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders.”

    The freedom of oppressors in countries like Saudi Arabia, sure. That is part of the reason why the US got 9/11.

    “3. George Bush is the president. He won. The rest of you whiners need to get over it.”

    The rest of us, like the rest of the world? It seems to me like Bush never had the most votes in the US, and second of all – AND more importantly, that he is NOT the President of the world.

    “4. I’m sure there were people who didn’t want to see us enter WW II.”

    US never entered World War II until it was attacked itself, curiously enough by pre-empetive strike b Japan that felt treatened. Remind you of anything?

    “I don’t want the war. No rational person wants a war. But when when we, as a nation, are in a war it is our duty to the nation that guarantees us the liberty to disagree to NOT impede the swift victory so that the fewest amount of lives will be lost. Anything less than total support might make the war drag on causing more US and Iraqi deaths than need to happen.”

    That is a VERY dangerous sentiment. Democracy and the freedom of speech are at their most important when in situations such as this one. Trying to make excuses to why people shouldn’t be allowed to fight against a war they think is wrong, based on the reasoning you are giving now would make for a totalitarty society. I certainly hope you realize the dangerous situation you put the whole society in if you live by such rules.

  12. Lies, lies, lies.

    That’s all I’ve been hearing of late. It never ceases to amaze me how short peoples memories are, even selective.

    Saddam Hussein’s rule was inpart sponsored and supported by the United States. It is a fact that the CIA had some involvement in the coup that put Saddam in power in 1963. Why because of the paranoia over communism. Remember Viet-nam, Korea, Israel, Panama, Salvador and on and on.

    It was that war-mongering piece of scum D.Rumsfeld who started the ball roling on Iraq being able to use chemical weapons in 1984. remmember Iraq-gate? Yes it really did happen!So what happened when Iraq used chemical wepons in the Iran / Iraq war? America turned a blind eye that’s what. Why? Because Iraq was doing Americas dirty work.So Whats my point?America and the UK should really stop meddling in world affairs, because it leads to situations like this. Can’t you see that they now have absolutely NO moral high ground they can take, none. So what right then do they have to judge? does it not then become clear as to why the Anglo-American alliance is seen as evil by some?I’m not anti-American or anti British (I’m british myself), but this is just common sense. If our respective countries continue like this things are NOT going to get better, they will get worse, we will find ourself under attack from cultures who rightly do not want us breathing down their neck, especially when our respective countries are so blatanly hypocritical, decade after decade. Beleive me people don’t like it.

  13. Jarle,

    The United States is the world’s most powerful nation. I know this doesn’t set well with some…I can live with that.

    The US has a responsibility to use it’s power wisely and the people have elected leaders to ensure that our national power is used in the best interest of the governed. It’s all in the constitution. President Bush (the current one)has chosen to do what he feels is right…not particularly what is popular. You have to respect his strength of character. PM Blair has similar strength of character…it could not have been an easy decision for him to make. God bless Australia who decided to weigh in on the side of right.

    History books will decide who is right. Chamberlain’s decision not to confront Hitler was roundly applauded at the time…but years later apeasement came back to haunt him.

    Something needed to be done. The UN is incapable of doing anything by itself…but the US is perfectly capable of doing something without the UN. When France acts unilateraly nobody crys ‘foul’.

    The rest of the world should walk a mile in our shoes. Wake up and smell the cordite.

  14. Billy

    “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” you should all know this by now.

    I can tell you know that Mr Blair’s days in politics are numbered in the UK, that’s the sentiment of a great majority in the UK. Especially when the public has to start paying for this war. How many Billions now?

    History has got nothing to do with right and wrong has it. So youre telling me that if the Germans won the war history would prove that gasing the jews was right?? The victors always write their version of events but that certainly does not make it right or just.

    “God Bless”????? Do you think that if there is a God he would bless one country over another? That he would approve for whatever reason of one country wagin war on another. If I were you I’d go back and read your Bible.

    No, no political organization or party is capable of doing the right thing unfortunately (including the UN), 5,000 years of politics should have tought us that by now. So dont’ put your trust in men that are as imperfect as you to sort out any problems. I’m not saying that we need law and order, of course we do. And there are higher morals that people should know and adhere to, The nazis at the Nuremburg trials found this out when they tried to excuse their actions by saying “we were only following orders”.

    The rest of the world should walk a mile in our shoes”. Now that really makes me angry. It’s a typical insular American view of the world. Do you actually realize how easy you’ve got it? How much the western world sponges of everyone else? Do you realize how much the American intervention has actually had the opposite effect on world events.

    Sorry I’m being abit unfair because because we started all of this, meddling, centuries ago. It is through British interference that we now have many of the problems in the middle east, africa and gods knows were else. The problems with India and Pakistan are of our making. What we see in Israel has a lot to do with British foreign policy.

    The points you have made are not in error but I don’t think there right. Bombing the crap out of a country because it’s rogue and has weapons of mass destruction that you gave them is not in the long run going to make any friends is it?

    and if you don’t belive me, one from the BBC –

    I rather think that it makes you even more enemys. Do you think that having or making more enemys is going to be better for the American people and State in the long run?

    I don’t want you to misunderstand me, I’m not pro Suddam, the sooner he goes the better for all of us, especially the Iraqis. But really we should not be in this place in the first instance. And we are here because of American and British (primarly, not ruling out the French:) foreign policy. If you think that Bush or Blair are some kind of moral guardians, defenders of freedom, then you are not only severely deluded but you also bought into the lies.

    You may be able to live with it, your country may, heck my country may but it most certainly don’t make it right.

  15. mike sheffield


    “do you think God would bless one country over the other?” i dont think that, i know that He would. i dont know what religous viewpoint you are basing this statement on, but you referenced the bible, so take your own advice. if you read the the bible you’ll note god has blessed one nation over another many, mnay times. if fact he has destoryed other countries just to hand the other nation their land. please study this. in fact no real study is needed, just dust it off and glance through it. you will find that you spoke out of your bum.

  16. Mike, please try to show some restraint when talking about other peoples beliefs. If not in the general discussion. (I hope it is still possible to have a discussion without name-calling).

    Personally I am a non-christian, but I think I have read more of the Bible than most christian people I know. And I have had enough discussions about religion with people from various variations of christianity and other religions to know that even within one particular belief set, there is no such thing as “one truth”.

    From what you are saying, it seems to me like you belong to those that put the most emphasis on the old testament. Which wouldn’t really make you a christian (on my religious map), since (as far as I have understood) the old testament and much of its teaching went out the door with the death of Jesus and his sacrifice. (Again, this is my interpretation). Even you base your religion on Jesus, you will know that he preached none-violence and talked about a loving God, a God that surely would be apposed to any war.

    But again, I am a non-christian, and its only my interpreation of christianity as a whole..

  17. mike sheffield


    nowhere in my last posting did i make any insult to anyones beliefs. i only referred to christianity because jason mentioned the bible as the basis for his arguement. i never stated that i was a christian. i only revealed that(according to the bible) God HAS strongly favored one nation over another. religion is always a touchy subect and it is hard to make any statement on the topic without offending someone. i just responed to jason’s smug remark “you’d better go back and read your bible”. the only absolute truth i was claiming is that the bible absolutly says that.

  18. mike sheffield

    oh yeah, i was making a humorous remark in my statement about jason’s bum because i knew he was british. just lighting the mood. sorry

  19. According to the old testament, yes. That is true. It does tell about nations that was favoured by God. From that to using it to current day events, would be to ignore the new testament and what Jesus said.

    But of course, there are religions that does not take into account the new testament. And others that mostly read the new. Etc. Ad infinitum. Which is exactly my point. You might read the Bible that way, but whatever way you read it, it will always be possible to find two others that read it the exact opposite way.

    To the bum statement. “Speaking out your bum” sounded like a derogative comment to me, but mind you – I am not a yankee or a brit.

  20. mike sheffield

    im sorry for not making my self very clear. i do not think God is blessing our country and condemning iraq. i only wanted to express to jason that according to christian theology God is unchanging, he the same now as He was 4000 years ago. His character never changes and there is no arguement, in any Godhead religion over that. so to say God would not bless one nation over another, when He clearly has in the past would be an incorrect statement. as far as the new testament goes, it mostly speaks of personal matters of the heart, not of governing authories. they are clearly 2 different issues. several times where Jesus and other new testement authors address govermental issues is that we should follow our superiors governing over for they are surely appointed by God. Jesus even prophesied, an act of God, which was the fall of Rome and it did take place. Nations rise and fall under the will of God still.

    since we are on the subject, would anyone care to comment on israel in 1967, when almost every arab nation was on top of them and they still prevailed. please do not make any assumtions about my stand on this one because of my previous statement, i choose not to express my opinion on it(why am i hearing applause). i would like to know other thoughts on the subject though.

  21. i think the only reason there is opposition to this war from other countries is we aren’t paying them enough to be quiet. it probably goes something like this, ” we condemn the u.s. for starting this war unjustly, without u.n. approval, oh by the way, can you through an extral billion our way this year?”

  22. John Stuart Mill

    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that NOTHING is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing more important than his own safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.

    John Stuart Mill

  23. To Evilbert:

    I agree. But why not let the Iraqis fight for their own freedom? Let them raise a rebellion, just as Americans did some 250 yrs ago against the English. We’ve never had a problem sponsoring strife before . . .Why should we spill American blood “to liberate” them? Ask the families of the 100+ U.S. combat casualties if they really believe their sons and daughters died protecting the U.S., or if there is some doubt as to whether those fine people died fighting another mans’ war. For that matter, I wonder what our own troops say to each other among themselves, off camera, as to why they are in Iraq . . .

  24. War is wrong. Bush IS evil. America is not a democratic country. Bush was not elected by the popular vote. America at best can be considered a bloated slow corrupt democracy, or better put a Capitalistic Oligarchy where all power and resources and decisions are controlled by companies and politicians with the most money and power. And no I am not moving to another country, and yes, they are other countries that can do democracy more honestly than us. I am not a hippy or a comunist. This ocuntry is a great place to live, I would defend it to the death if my freedom our home land was being theatened but what is the use of Bush stomping around the middle east trying to rid the world of BAD PEOPLE when I have people dying on my own front door step. Homeless starving people on the street have more affect on my freedom that Suddam. When thousands of people are starving on the streets in city across the US we think it is better “Free Iraq” when in the first place we are the ones enslaving them. Invading Iraq has nothing to do with protection from terrism or the “freedom of Iraq”. If they want freedom the need internal revolution. Our country was founded on revolution and if this country wasn’t so dammed lazy and bored sittting on the couch watching american idle someone might stand up and exspose our leaders for what they are if they didn’t mysteriously silenced first. And since we sat around and let Bush win and election he didn’t really win then I guess we are just as enslaved as the Iraqi people!!!

    Anyone who supports invading a country on the otherside of the world to free a people who don’t want anything to do with America is backwards. This war is about a lot things but it is not about the protection from terrorism or the freedom of Iraqi people.

    Support our troops, BRING THEM HOME!

  25. First of all, let me state that I do not support war in general. I do not believe that it war is a good thing and death is always bad, but we have to look at the whole picture.

    Saddam Hussein became the dictator in 1979 after already having tried to assassinate the head of government in the 1960’s. In 1981 he constructed a small “town” called Osirak, the sole purpose of which was to develop nuclear arms. In 1981, this was destroyed by the Israeli air force during the Iran-Iraq war. Hussein has had a long-standing proclivity for the creation of weapons of mass destruction and that did not end all of the sudden. We had before the war irrefutable evidence that Saddam had at one time chemical and biological weapons including Sarin Nerve Gas, VX Gas and anthrax. Saddam provided no evidence that he destroyed these agents. No nation–NO nation–believes that he has destroyed these weapons.

    Since Saddam assumed power in 1979, he has killed over 2 million of his own people. You might try to argue that in 30 years he killed 2 million, but in 3 weeks we killed 2,000. Do a little math, and youll discover that at our current pace, it would take almost 58 years to match his 2 million.

    Now for the UN. You must not be confused by what drives the Security Council to vote against war with Iraq. France is owed an undetermined amount of money by Iraq for the sale of weapons and other armaments that were illegal according to various UN sanctions which FRANCE supported. If the regime is overthrown, that debt disappears. They also have $60 billion in oil contracts with Iraq which are lost in the case of an overthrow. Russia is owed $6 billion by Iraq for illegal arms sales similar to those by France and has $40 billion in oil contracts with Iraq. Again, in the event of an overthrow, all of that is erased. It is hard to trust in a body so driven by avarice.

    Since the UN was created in San Francisco in 1945 following World War 2, there have been 291 wars and conflicts with 22,000,000 killed. The UN has voted to intervene twice–Korea in 1951 and Iraq in 1991. Both conflicts ended in armistices, not treaties–the UN has no idea what peace is besides the absence of open warfare. In many cases, such as in the Balkans and Rwanda where 2 million died in tribal warfare, Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN actively opposed intervention which could have saved millions of lives.

    Finally, Syria and Libya, both of which have dictators who are known to have slaughtered hundreds of thousands of their residents, co-chair the UN Council on Human Rights and Iraq, who continually refuses to disarm, is chairs the UN Council on Disarmament. All three nations are on the UN list of terrorist nations. Can a body that is this irresponsible in appointing and maintaining its leadership really be looked to for guidance?

    The Iraqi people need to be saved, as does the rest of the world. No one is safe while a man like Saddam Hussein is in power.

  26. I’m sorry, but there was an inaccuracy in my last post. has the count centraling around 1100 civilian casualties, not 2,000. Therefore, at our current pace, it will take over a century to match Saddam’s 2 million. Saddam’s regime is by far worse for the people of Iraq than a war with some civilian casualties after which they will be free from the rule of a menacing, tyrannical dictator.

  27. wow, the amount and intensity of what is being said here is great. i just came upon this site trying to find some accurate numbers for a zine i am starting and it makes me smile to know that people are actually trying to communicate, listen to both sides and not rely completely on television trash. i would love to comment on several things but i will keep this short. if any of you are willing to read more about this, i suggest picking up a copy of Chris Hedges “War is the force that gives us meaning” and Noam Chomsky’s short book on sanctions and war in iraq (i cant remember the name). that’s all. thanks.

  28. Many good points from both sides. The United States has often changed its policy from year to year, much like any other Gov’t. Nobody said Democracy was perfect, but it’s idea does seem to be fair and lasting. Not all americans agreed to the war, but at least we live in a country where you can have an opposing viewpoint. I would admit that this gov’t isn’t perfect, but I do know that we don’t put children in jail. Saddam is evil, but we are not the world’s policemen. The U.S is often damned if we do and damned if we don’t. I look forward to reading more discussion here, hopefully witout namecalling(and better spelling:)

  29. I would like to say something in response to something Russ stated earlier.. He said that a dying child on his doorstep would have more effect on his personal freedoms than having saddam dead or alive. Personally Russ I happen to think of America as a whole, and I try not to be so selfish as to focus on me me me, while my fellow Americans are dying under the ruins of the trade towers and crying at night because another innocent life was lost to the madmen in the middle east. You don’t want blood on your doorstep?? Well who really does? You can’t hide from terror, and you certainly can’t be so close minded to think you can live in a perfect world. Personal Freedoms my dear? What are those? Freedom can’t be personal, because you can’t Limit what is Free. Freedom is freedom for us all.. not wondering which car you should take… your beemer or your mercedes… please try to think of freedom as a privelege and not as something for just you to throw around. Complaining on the internet about our country isn’t doing anyone a favor. So what I have to say to you? Support Bush and our troops! And if you don’t like it here.. exersize your Right To Leave.

  30. Katie, you and a lot of other americans seem to be confused. So lets repeat it again:

    Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

    Saddam was a dictator, initially supported by the US. (While we are at it, so was Osama..)

    Buying into the propaganda of the Iraq war is stupid at best. There still are no proof of weapons of mass destruction that could threaten the US or its allies.

    Lets just all face it. The war had two purposed: First: to take focus away from problems within the united states that junior seem unable to do anything about, and second: to secure access to the black gold for all the gasoline drinking SUVs in america.

  31. President George Bush is doing the right thing and you people who are against America and its polices should pack your bags and leave NOW. Americans, like myself, do not need your type in our FREE Country. You should thank the Lord, we have George Bush as President, leading the free world against terror, instead of complaining and whining, like you do. Stand up and be an AMERICAN NOW.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top