Appeaser won't take yes for an answer>>

PatPatriot · Mar 24, 2003

Monday March 24, 2003
Appeasers Ignore Low Casualties

A source close to the CIA tells NewsMax:

One of the major issues of the addle-brained appeasement protesters is civilian casualties. We need to rebut this, and rebut it strongly. The Pentagon is too P.R.-oriented to take this issue head on, so it must be done by patriots in the press.

The best way to illustrate the absurdity of the civilian casualties is to use a simple ratio: Number of Civilian Casualties over Missles Impacting Baghdad.

This ratio, on the first night of the Shock and Awe bombing, was 207/1,500, or less than one civilian injured for every three missiles impacting Baghdad.

For every three missiles that created that firestorm shown live from Baghdad, only one person was injured! Each missile packed a 2,000-pound punch of high explosives.
The point that the public must be reminded of time and again is that this is not your father's bombardment. This bombardment is so precise that the Iraqis in Baghdad now have no fear of the bombing and simply go about their business, secure in the knowledge that the humanitarian concerns of Saddam's enemies will keep them safe.

Read more on this subject in

DannyMay · Mar 24, 2003

So If we drop 50,000 missles over their country it is OK if we murder 16,000 innocent civilians.

FunkSoulBrother · Mar 24, 2003

Is it really news anymore when it uses subjective terms like "appeaser"?

gamblingislife · Mar 25, 2003

Danny

I guess so since you think it's fine that Saddam has killed alot more people than that. WHERE IS YOUR OUTRAGE OVER THAT???????????? Does this mean you condone the iraqi goverment purposly killing innocent civlians and if not what is your solution.

radiofreecostarica · Mar 25, 2003

WHERE IS YOUR OUTRAGE OVER THAT????????????

Saddam is not my president.

Jazz · Mar 25, 2003

radio: You don't seriously mean that, do you?

radiofreecostarica · Mar 25, 2003

I don't mean it the way you think, jazz.
It is not our job to spread "democracy" throughout the world. Democracy is quoted because what we are doing here is imperialism, not democratic.

Real ironic that we invade under the pretense that Saddam was in violation of UN disarmament treaties when our invasion is in direct violation of the UN resolution...

Jazz · Mar 25, 2003

I didn't think so, radio, but you don't discharge much of the alphabet showing disgust over Saddam. Well, exactly what did you imagine 'serious consequences' meant in this excerpt from 1441?

"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations"

France directly told Colin Powell they would support force to back this resolution, and then reversed course, a complete and utter embrassment for them that they would do this to a supposed ally. THEY knew what that meant. But the UN loves to hide behind various meanings of words and phrases - they all knew what was meant. The UN is devoid of morality in this sense, that they have allowed Saddam to starve people in his country over these 12 years, using the diverted funds for the enrichment of himself and his butcher pals, as well as building up his WMDS and internal security (including lavish palaces) - the UN allowed this by refusing to enforce their own resolutions.

They, IMHO, have no moral ground to stand on, and the US does - we're doing it for our national security, only secondarily to help the Iraqis, but while we're there it IS a major priority.

p.s. And please don't try to tell me that that phrase meant more sanctions, the same that never bothered Saddam while he was starving the people against him.