Propaganda Revealed: 400,000 Iraqis in Mass Graves

chewy

PM admits graves claim 'untrue'
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1263901,00.html

Downing Street has admitted to The Observer that repeated claims by Tony Blair that '400,000 bodies had been found in Iraqi mass graves' is untrue, and only about 5,000 corpses have so far been uncovered.

The claims by Blair in November and December of last year, were given widespread credence, quoted by MPs and widely published, including in the introduction to a US government pamphlet on Iraq's mass graves.

In that publication - Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves produced by USAID, the US government aid distribution agency, Blair is quoted from 20 November last year: 'We've already discovered, just so far, the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves.'

On 14 December Blair repeated the claim in a statement issued by Downing Street in response to the arrest of Saddam Hussein and posted on the Labour party website that: 'The remains of 400,000 human beings [have] already [been] found in mass graves.'

---

'Iraq's Legacy of Terror: Mass Graves'
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html
Download it:
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf

---

ok so there no doubt saddam was **** a brutal dictator who killed people on a whim....

but they can't even deal with his killings right..... shows how desperate they were to exaggerrate everything....

arcadegame2004

Given the widespread and spontaneous removal of remains by families of those in the mass-graves in the immediate aftermath of the war, this may explain why Coalition troops have found so few so far.

therecklessone

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Given the widespread and spontaneous removal of remains by families of those in the mass-graves in the immediate aftermath of the war, this may explain why Coalition troops have found so few so far.

400,000 - 5,000 = 395,000.

That would be rather widespread then...

bonkey

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Given the widespread and spontaneous removal of remains by families of those in the mass-graves in the immediate aftermath of the war, this may explain why Coalition troops have found so few so far.

This "widespread and spontaneous removal"....that wouldn't have been something Mr. Blair was also insisting was true, or is there actual evidence to show that somewhere in the region of 395,000 bodies disappeared in this way?

jc

cleareyed

Only about 5000.
Not so bad so.

chewy

no terrible but as opposed to the wmd which they thought did exist and were only doing what they thought was right god love em... they knew the info on 400,00 graves was wrong when they said it... why exaggerate a thing like that

Sparks

Originally posted by cleareyed
Only about 5000.
Not so bad so.

Only half as bad as the invasion, in fact....

shotamoose

Originally posted by chewy
why exaggerate a thing like that

It sounded good at the time.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Sparks
Only half as bad as the invasion, in fact....

I think we're in danger of unfairly maligning Saddam's record as a tyrannical despot. Just because there may not be tens of thousands of his victims in mass graves, it doesn't mean there's not tens of thousands buried in more private accommodation around Iraq.

chewy

you try not to underestimate saddam cruelty and then blair lies about it and undermines the whole idea not us, him

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bonkey
This "widespread and spontaneous removal"....that wouldn't have been something Mr. Blair was also insisting was true, or is there actual evidence to show that somewhere in the region of 395,000 bodies disappeared in this way?

There were many reports on the news media, especially on TV, showing families removing the remains of their loved ones from mass-graves, with the US troops doing nothing to stop them, such was the disorganisation of the US troops after the war had ended in Iraq.

therecklessone

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
with the US troops doing nothing to stop them, such was the disorganisation of the US troops after the war had ended in Iraq.

But they weren't that disorganised that they weren't able to count the corpses first?

arcadegame2004

But they weren't that disorganised that they weren't able to count the corpses first?

Wouldn't surprise me.

dahamsta

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Given the widespread and spontaneous removal of remains by families of those in the mass-graves in the immediate aftermath of the war, this may explain why Coalition troops have found so few so far.

The lengths people will go to... the imaginative gobbledegook they will create... the lies upon lies they will develop... to excuse the lies of warmongers, is utterly mind-boggling.

I try to avoid being personal on the Politics forum this days, but it can't be avoided on this occasion: Only a fool would utter or believe a ridiculous theory like the above. Seek help.

adam

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Given the widespread and spontaneous removal of remains by families of those in the mass-graves in the immediate aftermath of the war, this may explain why Coalition troops have found so few so far.

So, say, your brother disappeared 10 years ago, about the time that big hole outside town was filled in by the government. You go along with your cousins and dig up the hole. You find, say 50 bodies (to keep it simple).

Which is your brother?

arcadegame2004

So, say, your brother disappeared 10 years ago, about the time that big hole outside town was filled in by the government. You go along with your cousins and dig up the hole. You find, say 50 bodies (to keep it simple).

Victor, the absence of certain person's remains in a mass-grave does not necessarily mean they are not buried somewhere else. And you can hardly compare our Government (regardless of how criticised it is) to that of Saddam.

Victor

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
Victor, the absence of certain person's remains in a mass-grave does not necessarily mean they are not buried somewhere else.

What I am doing is debunking the theory that lots of people wnet to mass graves, sorted through 400,000 bodies, did DNA tests, sorted out who got to take what and reburied the bodies without anybody noticing.

Of course if whole families and villages were killed, who would do the reburying? Wouldn't those mass graves remain intact, certainly long enough for them to be identified as mass graves.

Originally posted by arcadegame2004
And you can hardly compare our Government (regardless of how criticised it is) to that of Saddam.

LOL (and I feel bad for LOLing in this thread). I was hypothesising about an Iraqi, I wasn't talking about you or the Irish government.

BUMP!

Another debate on this? Fair nuff but most people either hate or love the US and wont see facts... here are some points on the war in which I'm trying not to let my opinions cloud the facts so comment away....

Was Sadam a Tyrant? -Yes.
Was he the worst? -Not even top 10 I'd imagine.
Should he have been removed? -Yes.
By the US? - No, the UN.
Why were the US interested? -Personal grudge by junior to restore some pride after 9/11, soft target, Oil, money, greed...
Should war have been used? -Only as a very last resort.
Future ramifications? -Hatred incited against the US and its allies. Can't see any good coming from this.
Who's at fault? - The UN mainly for being weak and indecisive. There have been incidents in the past here the UN should have acted and did not which paves the way for vigilante action (so to speak). Should have stopped the US from invading illegally.

bonkey

Originally posted by BUMP!
...and wont see facts...

But there's very little that you've posted thats fact. Most of it is interpretation and opinion.

Who's at fault? - The UN mainly for being weak and indecisive. There have been incidents in the past here the UN should have acted and did not which paves the way for vigilante action (so to speak). Should have stopped the US from invading illegally.

Umm, and how do you propose that the UN could have stopped the US?

Lets assume that its 2 years ago, and the US is making its "Saddam must go" sabre-rattling noises. You're the UN. What can you do to stop them?

(Please bear in mind while responding that the US is on the UNSC and can therefore veto any SC Resolution it doesn't like)

jc

Big Ears

some other country could Veto they're Veto .

ionapaul

Originally posted by Big Ears
some other country could Veto they're Veto .

The UN was never going to do anything to physically get rid of Saddam. I think the UN is a great idea, but without teeth what can it do? Plus having countries like Syria on the counter-terrorism committee is a little offputting - and provides a source for criticism of the UN.

cleareyed

Only half as bad as the invasion, in fact....

Does that mean that only 50,000 Irish ppl should have protested against Sadamm?

Sparks

Originally posted by cleareyed
Does that mean that only 50,000 Irish ppl should have protested against Sadamm?

Or maybe we should only have sold him half the beef for his army that we did?

cleareyed

Or maybe we should only have sold him half the beef for his army that we did?

Would that mean that he would have only half invaded Kuwait?
Or that when we sell beef it should be supervised so that no soldiers are allowed eat it?
Interesting one that. How would you enforce it?

Sparks

Originally posted by cleareyed
Would that mean that he would have only half invaded Kuwait?

Or maybe the US would have only half-pre-approved the invasion?

Or that when we sell beef it should be supervised so that no soldiers are allowed eat it?
Interesting one that. How would you enforce it?

Well, since we sold it directly to the Iraqi Army for consumption by soldiers, I'm pretty sure we couldn't - false advertising and all that...

cleareyed

Or maybe the US would have only half-pre-approved the invasion?

Really? Are you suggesting that the US preapproved the invasion of Kuwait by Sadamm?

Well, since we sold it directly to the Iraqi Army for consumption by soldiers, I'm pretty sure we couldn't - false advertising and all that...

That would be breach of contract you mean. If the contract specified for military consumption only. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't engage in trade with regimes that are dictatorial tyrranical etc.?

You have to stop doing things by halves you know. Spit it out!

Sparks

Originally posted by cleareyed
Really? Are you suggesting that the US preapproved the invasion of Kuwait by Sadamm?

Is it a suggestion when you're recalling the content of a conversation between the US ambassador and Hussein prior to the invasion?

That would be breach of contract you mean. If the contract specified for military consumption only. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't engage in trade with regimes that are dictatorial tyrranical etc.?
You have to stop doing things by halves you know. Spit it out!

Who, me? Suggest that we engage in ethical behaviour? Don't be silly!

Victor

Originally posted by cleareyed
Really? Are you suggesting that the US preapproved the invasion of Kuwait by Sadamm?

There was pre-knowledge and ambivalence.

cleareyed

Is it a suggestion when you're recalling the content of a conversation between the US ambassador and Hussein prior to the invasion?

No. That would be an assertion based on your specific memory of the event (that implies that you were present.) However if you are repeating something that someone else claims they heard or said that would be called hearsay. (And very like the band.) You will note Victor's more measured language: he claims "pre knowledge" which is not pre approval and he claims ambivalence, not a granting of approval either.
Were you present at the meeting?

It would be worse than silly for you to suggest we engage in ethical behaviour. It would be disingenuous. I bring you back to my initial post and invite you to reply. In fact I invite you to answer the questions posed to you. As you and I both know you are evading the issue. Why?

Sparks

Evading the issue, eh?
And here I was thinking I was attempting to engage in an ironic discussion...

The serious answer would be that noone has ever said Saddam was a decent chap. In fact the ones decrying him the most have been those in the anti-war camp; because they were decrying him (in Ireland at least) as far back as the beef deal (the comments from David Norris are on the Seanad records if you care to go look) while the more right-wing people were desperately looking the other way for expediency. So when he gassed 5,000 people or more at fallujah, the left-wing people were decrying him as a tyrant and as being guilty of crimes against humanity. While the right-wing people merrily funded him to replace those weapons used, because for expediency, it was easier to support Saddam than take him on.

The reason the left-wing people came out and called for the US not to invade was neither disingenous nor hypocritical nor even very complex - killing tens of thousands (and indeed the best estimates were in the hundreds of thousands at the time) of innocent civilians when the UN inspectorate were accomplishing the job with no casualties was a heinous act, and one which had a very transparent ulterior motive - the control of the supply of oil from the region.

The fact that after killing an estimated ten thousand civilians (and noone knows the final total because the US ordered that the count be halted before it was completed), not one of the now-infamous WMDs was located; that the entire region is now highly unstable; that the civilian infrastucture is in tatters and will in all liklihood remain so for a decade or more; that the newly-appointed ruler of Iraq is already being charged with murdering people out-of-hand; that the number of people who have seen their lives destroyed and who are now prime targets for terrorist recruiters is mind-numbingly high; and the evidence now emerging to support the long-held assertions of war crimes committed by the US forces; all combined are supposedly excused because mass graves with 400,000 bodies and other such horrific things are now over. Except that there were no mass graves with 400,000 bodies, but closer to 5,000 bodies and those from the Iran-Iraq war, which saw both sides encouraged by the same people now claiming those deaths as justification for their own acts.

Does that address the issue directly enough for your tastes?

cleareyed

Does that address the issue directly enough for your tastes?

You haven't addressed them at all.

You alleged that the US gave approval for the invasion of Kuwait.
You were asked about your presence at a conversation.
You were asked about trade with regimes that are dictatorial tyrranical etc.
You never answered the criticism of the numbers game implied in my first post.

Those are the issues I asked.

The issues you chose to hear are your own. You are talking to yourself. You haven't dealt with the issues I raised. Why not? Why do you consider it to be direct to talk off the point? In short , no, your attempt to address the issue is not to my taste. But you are far more concerned with your assumptions about my taste and assumptions about my opinions for that to register with you.

Your final paragraph is a mixture of fact and fiction and is woefully unbalanced.

sceptre

Originally posted by cleareyed
a conversation.

Ah but by all accounts it was an interesting conversation:)

Glaspie's comments when confronted in Baghdad by British journalists with the transcript on 2 September 1990 were pretty classic ("Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait")

Azza

Interesting article. Does go to show how effective proganada can be. I must say I believed Blair when he said that number of bodies was found and though I was against the war I also believed Saddam had WMD. The only thing I did not believe was the links to Bin Ladens terrorists which was abit too convient.

But a majority of people believed those claims coming from senior goverment officals of powerfull nations. Its amazing what these people can get away. Blair and Bush got off scott free while there intelligence agencys where lambasted. The BBC chair stepped down for making a mistake about exagratted WMD capabilty. The head of that British newspaper that published those fake British abuse photos stepped down for making a mistake (both of there accusations where true just not the way they assumed). I'm convienced both Bush and Blair did everything in there power to push the intelligence agencys for the most pro war point of view and then presented that to the public who believed them. But no doubt if they did and if they where caught they would worm there way out of it (weak opposition parties I guess alot like here)

If Bush gets re-elected I wonder what the new spin will be on the danger posed by whatever country he decides to invade.

Sparks

Originally posted by cleareyed
You haven't addressed them at all.

And here was me thinking I had. Okay, let's do this again, bit by bit.
Wouldn't want you to think I was dodging questions now, would I?

You alleged that the US gave approval for the invasion of Kuwait.

The link showing this was posted above. In general, if someone says "I'm going to do such-and-such", and you say "Well, that's no business of mine to be worrying about", that's called tacit approval.

You were asked about your presence at a conversation.

I wasn't there. I just read the transcripts and accounts and some analyses of same, all of which agreed that "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait." came down to tacit approval of the invasion.

You were asked about trade with regimes that are dictatorial tyrranical etc.

Don't think we should be doing so. Simple enough. (And no, I don't think we should have the links we do with places like China and Iraq).

You never answered the criticism of the numbers game implied in my first post.

You'll have to state it explicitly instead of implying, I'm afraid. Are you saying the numbers are bad, or the game is bad, or the judgement of morality on the basis of the numbers?

The issues you chose to hear are your own. You are talking to yourself. You haven't dealt with the issues I raised. Why not? Why do you consider it to be direct to talk off the point? In short , no, your attempt to address the issue is not to my taste. But you are far more concerned with your assumptions about my taste and assumptions about my opinions for that to register with you.
Your final paragraph is a mixture of fact and fiction and is woefully unbalanced.

I'd answer in words, but someone's done so graphicly with far more eloquence than I could muster:

cleareyed

Well done sparks. You have finally been dragged around to the issues I raised and you have answered them. I know you thought you had the first time but as I explained to you that was because you were too busy making assumptions based on not reading what other ppl write.
So let's see what we're left with it.

You have changed approval to tacit approval. Subsequent questions: Glaspie said that arab-arab wars were not the concern of the US. This sounds like the policy that many in Ireland who opposed the recent war want. They want the US to keep out of other countries and their conflicts. It's the old isolationist policy that took the US out of Europe after WW1 and was a contributory factor to the rise of Hitler.

You weren't at the conversation. Thank you.

You finally answer the question on trade with regimes that are tyrranical etc. You don't think we should. You mention Iraq and China. Well if the US has acted in the despicable manner you believe and Britain has joined them...are you calling for Ireland to stop trading with them? And what other countries would be on that list? In fact what countries would be on the list of acceptable trading partners?

Now to my first post: that was a criticism of the argument that Sadamm only killed 5000 as opposed to x y z who killed whatever. It's a bad game. (Note how to answer a question directly) The fact is that we will never know for sure how many Iraqis were murdered by Sadamm's regime. Have the US killed innocent people in Iraqi deliberately? Have they targeted civilians with the intention of killing them? I doubt that it has been policy to do so (there are always individualas who don't follow policy) There is no gain in such a policy.

Now for your final paragraph:
"the region is unstable": a region made up of tyrranies and oligarchies is unstable. How awful. The "stability" argument is one that really sums up the modern malaise; it is better to be "stable" even if you have no rights than to fight for a better future. It is a belief that conflict is always bad. It's a slave's creed and you are welcome to it.

No WMDs located: fact.

"the newly appointed ruler..charged with murdreing": fiction. It has been alleged that he shot prisoners. He may be charged in a court of law. Which is a pleasant innovation in Iraq. Courtesy of the Americans. Courtesy of conflict.

Infrastructure in tatters: fact. Causes? More than the Americans. Including Sadamm loyalists who want to deny people prosperity and freedom. And Islamic fundametalists who want to impose a theocracy. You didn't mention their contribution. Unbalanced.

Prime targets for recruiters: fact. The US army has had an arrogance that technology wins wars. The British long ago realised (in part because of their experience in the War of Independence here) that you need to win hearts and minds too. I hope the Americans learn that lesson. I doubt they will as long as Bush and Co. remain in power. I doubt Kerry understands it either given his elitist background.

US army war crimes: fact. Well documented. Abu Ghraib. But the thing is we live in a democracy where these things are shown up, are investigated, are followed up through a legal process. You give no credit to that change in Iraq now. Unbalanced.

You claim that the supposed mass graves have been used to excuse all the above. I don't excuse them. I never have. But there is a blindness in your posts: you don't balance it out. I have gone through your final paragraph point by point and shown where fact fiction and imbalance exists. If you still think your cartoon represents anything of the dialogue I have engaged you in here I despair for you. Finally, there are more shades of political opinion than "left wing ppl" and right wing ppl".

Sparks

Originally posted by cleareyed
You have finally been dragged around to the issues I raised

No, you just pointed out that you weren't talking about what I thought you were talking about. "dragged" is an overly-strong word for that.

You have changed approval to tacit approval.

Same thing, at the end of the day. The action is still carried out. Also, remember that these aren't two chaps in a pub having a natter - these were people for whom the choice of words is their profession. Tacit approval was not given by accident or mistake. Which means that further up the diplomatic chain, someone sat down and made a policy decision to give it.

Glaspie said that arab-arab wars were not the concern of the US. This sounds like the policy that many in Ireland who opposed the recent war want. They want the US to keep out of other countries and their conflicts. It's the old isolationist policy that took the US out of Europe after WW1 and was a contributory factor to the rise of Hitler.

Only if you do the aural equivalent of squinting. There's a difference between opposing an illegal invasion which has an obvious ulterior motive that's a long way from altruism or humanitarianism; and isolationism. And it's rather a large difference.

You weren't at the conversation. Thank you.

There have been several high court cases I wasn't at either - but I've read the transcripts so I can comment on the proceedings. Similarly here. That's the whole point of a transcript.

You finally answer the question on trade with regimes that are tyrranical etc. You don't think we should. You mention Iraq and China. Well if the US has acted in the despicable manner you believe and Britain has joined them...are you calling for Ireland to stop trading with them?

What a cleverly laid sophistric trap. Why, I am hoist on mine own petard, truly. :rolleyes:
So tell me cleareyed, do you think we should trade with nations that have proven, documented practises that violate human rights?

Now to my first post: that was a criticism of the argument that Sadamm only killed 5000 as opposed to x y z who killed whatever. It's a bad game.

Now that we agree on. Of course, I've already pointed out that my post on the matter was ironic, but it was only said once, so I can see how you could miss it.

The fact is that we will never know for sure how many Iraqis were murdered by Sadamm's regime.

Indeed. The same way we'll never know how many innocents were killed by the US in the process of invading the country...

Have the US killed innocent people in Iraqi deliberately? Have they targeted civilians with the intention of killing them?

Yes, there have been reports of this occouring on both an individual level (the one that sticks in my mind is that of a Marine proudly announcing that he'd shot a ten-year-old boy because he might have been running to pick up an RPG) and at a policy level (there was an actual legal case made against Franks for attacking hospitals and civilian infrastructure which had the direct effect of killing civilians).

"the region is unstable": a region made up of tyrranies and oligarchies is unstable.

Actually, the region was far more stable, paradoxically, when only the tyrannies and oligarchies and monarchies were around. Now there's a political vacuum and the result is a thousand factions all scrabbling for control, as well as a few thousand assorted terrorist and bandit groups.
Even the Iraqis have made that point.

How awful. The "stability" argument is one that really sums up the modern malaise; it is better to be "stable" even if you have no rights than to fight for a better future. It is a belief that conflict is always bad. It's a slave's creed and you are welcome to it.

I personally don't subscribe to it, I'm merely pointing out that one of Bush's justifications for the invasion was to stabilise the region. And it's failed, miserably, and in full accordance with rational prediction made prior to the invasion.

"the newly appointed ruler..charged with murdreing": fiction. It has been alleged that he shot prisoners. He may be charged in a court of law. Which is a pleasant innovation in Iraq. Courtesy of the Americans. Courtesy of conflict.

Actually, courts and law were around in Iraq a long time before they were around in the US. In fact, had the US not supported Saddam for all those decades, they might have made a far earlier return. In the meantime, however, I await with baited breath the results of his indictment and trial. Honest I do.

Infrastructure in tatters: fact. Causes? More than the Americans.

Sure. We need to include weathering, general wear-and-tear and so on. But loyalists? Nope. They're attacking oil pipelines, not hospitals and water supplies. I'm afraid the US has the sole responsibility for those. But then, that's what happens when you drop tens of thousands of pounds of high explosive on things...

I doubt Kerry understands it either given his elitist background.

Not that I'm any great fan of the man, but Kerry doens't have an elitist background. His wife did.

US army war crimes: fact. Well documented. Abu Ghraib.

And more, and not just in Iraq. Try Guantanamo, Kandahar, or a dozen other US bases...

But the thing is we live in a democracy where these things are shown up, are investigated, are followed up through a legal process. You give no credit to that change in Iraq now. Unbalanced.

There is no such change in Iraq now. Or didn't you notice that the army and secret police who actually did the dirty work for Saddam have been rehired to work for the US?

You claim that the supposed mass graves have been used to excuse all the above.

I don't claim it. It's fact. Tony Blair's words in fact.

you don't balance it out.

Because sometimes in life, things aren't balanced. In this case there was a clear seperation between right and wrong, at least according to our moral code. And Saddam and Bush and Blair were on the same side of that divide.

I have gone through your final paragraph point by point and shown where fact fiction and imbalance exists.

Indeed. :rolleyes:
Why, I'd almost have to say your post was "fair and balanced"....

cleareyed

you just pointed out that you weren't talking about what I thought you were talking about

Exactly.

I note with some weariness that you continue to evade (trade, change in Iraq if press can report abu ghraib), change the goalposts (exclusion of oil pipeline for civilian infrastructure), attempt to dismiss on the basis of condescension (possible trial of Iraqi leader), and show a basic ignorance of the difference between intention and effect in an ethically based analysis of a situation (Franks and casualties).

We do agree on some issues.

You have come a long way from the start of this. I congratulate you on learning to listen and to read what other people write. For your further development I ask you to drop the tone of assumed superiority; it doesn't suit you and it gets in the way of communication. If you need to use your posts on a message board to feel superior and make you feel better...well, you know.

My last word: the public debate in ireland on the war in Iraq has been distorted and dominated by anti war voices. It is time for balance.

It's the weekend.

Sparks

Originally posted by cleareyed
My last word: the public debate in ireland on the war in Iraq has been distorted and dominated by anti war voices. It is time for balance.

And my "last word" (which will actually be a sentence):
The public debate in Ireland on the war in Iraq only came about because of the anti-war people, the pro-war people were very happy to keep everything quiet and almost-under-the-table, as shown by the shananigans at Shannon - an attitude that speaks volumes to those who believe that anything that's morally correct has no problems with the media spotlight....

sceptre

Originally posted by cleareyed
For your further development I ask you to drop the tone of assumed superiority; it doesn't suit you and it gets in the way of communication. If you need to use your posts on a message board to feel superior and make you feel better...well, you know.

<cough>pot kettle</cough>
(no offence cleareyed but the paragraph quoted is evidence enough)

cleareyed

Dear sceptre,
a little poem for you

sceptre and crown must tumble down
and in the dust be equal made
with the poor crooked scythe and spade.

Sparks

Is this the part where we observe the intrinsic properties of latex and adhesive are respectively shared by ourselves and our verbal assailants, and comment on the subsequent consequences for the statements of said assailants?

sceptre

Thanks cleareyed - I think anyone who ever did the Inter Cert is familiar with that excerpt from Death The Leveler, even if it's got a lack of relevancy at the top of the scale.

Moving back to the actual point of the thread, obviously the idea that families came and removed a whopping 395,000 bodies is pretty laughable. I don't think it affects the rights or the wrongs of the war in any major way, except the usage by Bl;air of the large figure to partly justify the incursion. Basically, and the reasoning's a bit simplistic here, if it was important enough for Blair to part-justify the war by mentioning almost half a million bodies found (not suspected to be there, actually found), it should be important in some way for us to think a little more than "Oh, just 1.25% of the professed figure then, OK". Despite the rampant whingey hair-splitting up the page, someone lied to someone about this as well. Relatively speaking, it's only a twig, but it still gets added to the pile.

MeatProduct

I find it slightly hypocritical that Blair would use the 400,000 dead issue as a reason to invade in order to kill more. He uses it like he thinks it's a tragedy that 400,000 are dead, but if he really did then why go in and invade and kill more? Really, why?

To kill Sadam of course
Then kill him and not the Iraqi people.

To tackle terrorism
Of course invading a country has always been a most fantastical and wondorous way of reducing terrorism.

Nick

gaelic cowboy

Lad's who care's if they lied stuff Saddam an his cronies. So they lied about something else big wow since the whole thing was fabrication whats one more at the end of the day. Ye know it's just possible that every one was convinced they were there just because he was Saddam. A theory gaining ground now is that many of saddams WMD programmes were pure lies by generals and scientists lining there own pockets. False reports and results sent to higher ups for funding etc etc CIA intercepts and swallows the lot. It's not too far off the mark I bet afterall Werner Von Braun involved himself in research of rocketry during WW2 to eventually go to the moon and stuff. The result was the famous V1/V2 rockets which were pants militarily after the war what happens he goes to US and continues the research make's ye think doesn't it what might have been going on in Iraq eh.