Janesville Gazette Sound Off Excerpt:It was safer in Iraq? Not quite. But radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh agrees with you, the only difference is, he gets paid to talk crazy.
On Iraq- In 2006, 821 soldiers were killed in Iraq. It was safer in Iraq than some of our cities where crime is out of control. -- Anonymous 1-31-2007
Civilian casualties in Iraq
Media Matters Summary:What about the 34,000 Iraqi civilians (conservative figure) who were violently killed in 2006? Did you forget them? They don’t count? They were not murdered? What is it about Iraqis, Rush, that you don’t count them as human casualties? Their religion? The color of their skin? Or that they’re Arabs? What is it?
Rush Limbaugh compared the number of murders in Philadelphia to American military deaths in Iraq; in fact, the rate of military deaths in Iraq is far higher than the murder rate in Philadelphia.
13 comments:
It's really a shame.
I wonder how many Iraqi's Saddam murdered in a years time? Does anybody know that?
At this point does it matter? He's dead, we can't blame him anymore.
Umm yes we can he killed millions of people in his regime. He died for his crimes. He would still be killing people if we wouldn't have taken him out of power.
saddam was a murderer, he killed people who opposed him. the thousands dying over the past three years are dying in opposition to something, its just not saddam. if saddam were in power to this day, fewer would be dead.
Hey 6:58, do you have proof saddam killed millions? They say he killed at least 15 people with his own hands, but reports that 50,000 or more lost their lives on his orders are still unsubstantiated today. You only have to kill once to be a murderer.
Still, what does saddam have to do with Iraqi civilians and our troops being killed today?
Because Saddam Hussein killed thousands of his own countrymen, what dfference does it make that thousands more are dying today by someone else's hands, right?
Most of the killing is done by Saddam loyalist. They are killing their own countrymen. The coalilition isn't killing innocent Iraqi people it's the terrorists.
What coalition? And Iraqi's are killing their own, it's a civil war. But that leaves us back to when we started, only worse.
Right now, you will never convince me that it's safer in Baghdad than in Philadephia.
Was it considered a civil war while Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people? Was it a civil war when the kurds tried to topple Saddam? It's not a civil war it's a pocket of terrorists in two cities that are blowing up innocent people. It's pockets of resistance. Bagdad has cars blowing up and killing many people at once. Philadelphia has hundreds of gang members slashing people throats. Something you don't hear about to much of. Also, comparing Philadelphia a city of about 2 million people to Bagdad which is over 5 million people you really would have to double the murders in Philadelphia and then compare to the murers in Bagdad. But, still comparing a city that is in the middle of a war and a city that isn't can't really be compared properly.
If one million American's decided one day to topple their government, assasinate government officials, and took to an armed rebellion however strong or weak, and were squashed in a armed conflict/massacre ordered by the president. Is that a civil war? Would those Americans be considered enemy combatants? Would the president be considered a murderer?
Much of the crime in Philly or Chicago is gang on gang revenge. There is no comparison. It is insanity to imply that Baghdad is safer.
Most gang members are Americans so, they actually are Americans killing Americans. Bagdad is in a war zone Philly isn't you can't compare the two.
I would think that Saddam loyalists are also after revenge and taking out their revenge on other Iraqi's.
Post a Comment