FBI interrogator tells what happened for seven months with S

[araby]

(CBS) Saddam Hussein initially didn't think the U.S. would invade Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction, so he kept the fact that he had none a secret to prevent an Iranian invasion he believed could happen. The Iraqi dictator revealed this thinking to George Piro, the FBI agent assigned to interrogate him after his capture.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml

I was listening to the radio coming back from dinner and listening to Bill O'Reilly's fill-in interview with Scott Pelley. When I heard Scott Pelley say that Sadam Hussein kept up the facade of having WMD's out of fear of Iran the rage came through my body and I got out of my car at the gas station, said, "YOU GOTTA BE SHITTING ME", slammed my car door and went in to buy beer with tears in my eyes.

[Kramer]

nice. smart guy that saddam.

[araby]

this is gonna air tonight.

[Zanchief]

nice. smart guy that saddam.

I'm not sure who's smarter, Saddam for lying about WMDs or Bush for believing him and killing thousands upon thousands of people because of it.

[Harrison]

Or Saddam for using them on his own people...?

[araby]

when he gassed those people he should have been taken out then, not twenty years later when it wasn't even justified.

this is the sorta news that nobody gets unless they're paying attention or *really* care about what's going on over there. this will fly over so many people's heads..and it makes me so angry ><

of course, thanks to South Carolina, the entire country is watching Obama and since this aired last night, not even the talk shows are discussing it.

[Tikker]

when he gassed those people he should have been taken out then, not twenty years later when it wasn't even justified.

so what you're saying is the rest of the world should nuke the US, since you're doing what saddam did, but on a larger scale?

gotcha~

[Markarado]

On a larger scale? You're really that stupid aren't you?

[Arlos]

What's the latest estimate of civilian dead in Iraq as a result of the invasion? As of October 2006, over a year ago, a study from John's Hopkins University (gee, they're nobodies, right?) found that there were over 650,000 Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the US invasion of Iraq.

We may not have used WMDs on them, but goddamn we've been efficient at slaughtering them in biblical numbers.

And for this we expect the rest of the world to praise us? How deluded and psychotic can you get?

-Arlos

[Lyion]

What's the latest estimate of civilian dead in Iraq as a result of the invasion? As of October 2006, over a year ago, a study from John's Hopkins University (gee, they're nobodies, right?) found that there were over 650,000 Iraqi civilian deaths as a result of the US invasion of Iraq.

This figure is 10 times higher than the estimated number of deaths, which are done by valid, fact finding groups and not ideological anti war groups putting out propaganda, that those who do not care about the truth use.

A study paid for by a George Soros group and his far left wingnuts that is completely at odds with the UN/Who and other studies done is just not believable.

If a study is paid for by the funders of moveon.org, the General Betray-us people, it should not be given the time of day. It's been pretty heavily debunked, as well.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/article ... /index.htm

This theory regarding WMDs is one of many put forward. However, the proof is in the pudding. This always seems to be ignored by the partisans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nWEPNmP0uk

[Evermore]

1 death is too much

[Tikker]

On a larger scale? You're really that stupid aren't you?

are you stupid enough to think the US has killed less Iraqi citizens than Saddam did?

[Gypsiyee]

well apparently, it's okay to do it so long as it's for peace!

ah, what a beautiful strategy we have here. kill to save lives! with logic like that, it's no wonder we're so fat, too. eat to lose weight!

[Tikker]

nono

they believe in a different religion, so if you kill them, they're going to hell anyway, so it's not like you'll have to worry about them complaining in the afterlife

that's what makes it win/win

[Zanchief]

Arabs aren't really people though. I'm not sure they even have a soul.

[Phlegm]

On a larger scale? You're really that stupid aren't you?

are you stupid enough to think the US has killed less Iraqi citizens than Saddam did?

According to this book, the US is lagging behind Hussein in killing Iraqis. If the US wants the number 1 position, it needs to step up the killings.

http://www.oheditions.com/spip.php?article35

[Tikker]

reference a real source, rather than a sensational book sleeve

(ps, there's no doubt that saddam whacked an awful lot of folks in iraq)

[Arlos]

Uh, Lyion, it's not only John's Hopkins that gets those numbers.

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/image ... 694919.pdf

The Lancet, for those that don't know, is the british equivalent to the New England Journal of Medicine. It's one of the most prestigious medical journals in the entire world. Their number is 600,000 as of July '06.

Somehow, I doubt MoveOn or Soros has anything to do with a British medical journal....

-Arlos

[Lyion]

Read the article I linked, or feel free to check google yourself and see.

It's been shown to be full of shit.

[Lyion]

Good enough for partisans, but certainly not fact, and the study itself was shown to be ridiculous, which you could see from the National Journal <not a partisan publication> article above.

In reality the numbers from the Lancet study were given by a group of activists and not a good scientific study. They are much, much higher than any of the other 'real' studies.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01102008/ne ... m_8493.htm

January 10, 2008 -- Anti-Bush billionaire George Soros helped finance a dubious study of Iraqi casualties that was rushed into print on the eve of the 2006 elections, according to a new report.

Soros, who gave more than $20 million to prevent President Bush's re-election, contributed $45,000 of the $145,000 that was spent on the study, the National Journal disclosed.

The study, which The Lancet, a British medical journal, published three weeks before the midterm elections, made major headlines around the world with claims that some 650,000 Iraqis died in the war to overthrow Saddam Hussein and the ensuing chaos.

Two of the study's co-authors told the National Journal that they opposed the war and submitted their findings to Lancet with the insistence that it appear before the election.

Much of the data for the study, which was organized by Johns Hopkins University, was collected by Iraqi researcher Riyadh Lafta, who once worked for Saddam, the National Journal said.

Soros, who has an estimated fortune of more than $8 billion, has backed various left-wing and anti-Bush groups, such as MoveOn.org. A Soros spokesman did not return a request for comment.

The 650,000 figure was regarded with skepticism when the study appeared because it was vastly higher than estimates by the US government (30,000) and the Iraqi government (50,000).

Even an antiwar activist group, Iraq Body Count, claimed 45,000 dead, a fraction of the Lancet figure.

Many anti-war activists received the Lancet numbers with glee, and touted it as an example of US lying.

But the National Journal found that some of the methods used to gather data seemed designed to boost that death count

The researchers interviewed far fewer people than were spoken to for other casualty studies, and seemed to focus on places where people were more likely to be killed, it said.

The Lancet seemed to be distancing itself from the data, the National Journal said.

"Anything [the authors] can do to strengthen the credibility of the Lancet paper would be very welcome," said Lancet editor Richard Horton.

Yesterday, the Iraqi government and the World Health Organization released a new study which used similar methodology to the Johns Hopkins researchers, but concluded 151,000 Iraqis died of violence in the three years after the U.S.-led invasion.

[Yamori]

This figure is 10 times higher than the estimated number of deaths, which are done by valid, fact finding groups and not ideological anti war groups putting out propaganda, that those who do not care about the truth use.

Even 65,000 deaths is massive. That's as big as about twenty one 9-11's.

Even if you exclude deaths caused by the social instability, the number of innocent civilians killed directly by the US military (bombs, ect) isn't negligable. Those facts and those lives aren't mere war propaganda.