Bush and Blair admit Iraq ''errors''

Jello

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5016548.stm

About time they copped they did wrong. Idiots.

Bush also regrets saying ''Bring it on!!!''

tallus

The dogs on the street knew it was wrong before they even went in It's a bit late to be apologising imo to the 100,000 + dead Iraqi citizens

Ruu_Old

Lovely :mad: a bit late now though

Benny-c

tallus wrote:

The dogs on the street knew it was wrong before they even went in It's a bit late to be apologising imo to the 100,000 + dead Iraqi citizens

While I agree the Invasion of Iraq by the 'coalition' was/is a military & humanitarian disaster, it has been independently estimated that the deaths are running at approx 34,830 to 38,990 , now thats 34,830 to 38,990 too many, it aint 100,000.

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4525412.stm

Terry

add to that the fact that it was not sanctioned by the U.N., thus making it an illegal war under their rules. rules that are supposedly followed by all the countries involved in this atrocity.

They also called for the international community to give its full support to the new Iraqi government.

In a Washington news conference, the British prime minister said it was important to Iraq's leaders to know that "we will stand firm with them" against "terrorism and violence"

are they for real?
first they ask us to support a puppet government, something america has had very little success with in the past. cuba, anyone?
then they make a stand against violence. yeah, killing hundreds of thousands of people wasn't really violence. it was done in the name of peace.
****.

Terry

Benny-c wrote:

While I agree the Invasion of Iraq by the 'coalition' was/is a military & humanitarian disaster, it has been independently estimated that the deaths are running at approx 34,830 to 38,990 , now thats 34,830 to 38,990 too many, it aint 100,000.

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4525412.stm

history is written by the winners.

tallus

Benny-c wrote:

While I agree the Invasion of Iraq by the 'coalition' was/is a military & humanitarian disaster, it has been independently estimated that the deaths are running at approx 34,830 to 38,990 , now thats 34,830 to 38,990 too many, it aint 100,000.

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4525412.stm

I can post a link that agrees with my figure too
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/20352/

iFight

about time...a bit late though:mad:

zuma

Benny-c wrote:

While I agree the Invasion of Iraq by the 'coalition' was/is a military & humanitarian disaster, it has been independently estimated that the deaths are running at approx 34,830 to 38,990 , now thats 34,830 to 38,990 too many, it aint 100,000.

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4525412.stm

Oh come on!

We both know that since the Dr Kelly "incident" the BBC is no longer as impartial as it once was.

More sources please.

Manic Moran

zuma wrote:

More sources please.

How about http://www.iraqbodycount.org?

NTM

Benny-c

julep wrote:

add to that the fact that it was not sanctioned by the U.N., thus making it an illegal war under their rules. rules that are supposedly followed by all the countries involved in this atrocity.


are they for real?
first they ask us to support a puppet government, something america has had very little success with in the past. cuba, anyone?
then they make a stand against violence. yeah, killing hundreds of thousands of people wasn't really violence. it was done in the name of peace.
****.

It is a disaster, I agree

cronin

errors, and error is when your doing mutlipcation and you forget to carry the 1. invading iraq was for wwds was a clever smoke screen for getting control of the oil and the Euphrates. how much have they spend on the war now, while some child dies of starvation if Sudan!!

Hobbes

by "they" they mean the administration, they don't mean that Blair+Bush actually did anything wrong.

Dirk Gently

Manic Moran wrote:

How about http://www.iraqbodycount.org?

NTM

now that is very odd. I remember having that counter on one of my old websites and it was well above 100,000 ages ago. Did they reset it or something? What was day one for the present counter?

Manic Moran

clown bag wrote:

now that is very odd. I remember having that counter on one of my old websites and it was well above 100,000 ages ago. Did they reset it or something? What was day one for the present counter?

Earliest incident on their database actually predates the invasion: One person killed on a raid on a military radar facility on 01 JAN 2003. I've not been exactly following the site, so I don't know if their methodology changed at all. Maybe the 100,000 figure was taken from the Lancet Report, and they revised it after they started doing their own research?

NTM

Dirk Gently

They must have revised how they get their information but I thought the whole point was that they got their figures from reading all media reports on Iraq, with the MIN figure coming from conservative pro war media sources and the MAX number coming from anti-war media sources, which would suggest an accurate figure would be in between the min-max figures they give. I could be mistaken but I had that counter on one of my old websites and I'm nearly positive the max number was well above 100,000.

ISAW

Benny-c wrote:

While I agree the Invasion of Iraq by the 'coalition' was/is a military & humanitarian disaster, it has been independently estimated that the deaths are running at approx 34,830 to 38,990 , now thats 34,830 to 38,990 too many, it aint 100,000.

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4525412.stm

Yeah right. And there were not six million Polish jews killed by the Nazis? when you include slavs and gypsies maybe it is pronably ONLY four million jews. SO? What is your point? 38,830 is "not in the league" of 100,000. Do you think 100,000 dead suddenly makes someting 61,170 "worse" than 38,830?

A Dub in Glasgo

Accountability for these guys who sanctioned murder, massacre and mayhem on the Iraqi population?

Ciaran500

ISAW wrote:

Yeah right. And there were not six million Polish jews killed by the Nazis? when you include slavs and gypsies maybe it is pronably ONLY four million jews. SO? What is your point? 38,830 is "not in the league" of 100,000. Do you think 100,000 dead suddenly makes someting 61,170 "worse" than 38,830?

:rolleyes:

Did you read the post, he did say that was too many but just corrected who ever said 100,000. Nothing wrong with that.

ISAW

Ciaran500 wrote:

:rolleyes:

Did you read the post, he did say that was too many but just corrected who ever said 100,000. Nothing wrong with that.

And where did I state something was wrong with it? the point I was actually was making was not about whether figures were right or wrong but whether there is any significance in the motivation behind why people emphasise "correct" figures.

Is there a significance or is there not.
Obviously its like anything,When you want to make a point you choose the figures that best suit your point.

I'd have also thought that the figure was up around 100,000 but thats without looking into it.

Frederico

There are around 1000 bodies arriving at the Baghdad morgue a month now.

What was the figure for violent deaths in Northern Ireland for 25 years?.. I think it was around 3000.

So Iraq's capital city is experiencing that number of dead every 3 months.

There are of course thousands and thousands badly burnt, multilated and paralysed.

The scariest part is the sectarian violence, which I think is going to continue for a long time.

On a flip note though the murder rate in South Africa is about 20,000 a year. So if you do your sums based on the 38,000 Iraqi dead figure (over 3 years), that makes South Africa a more dangerous place?