The link below is to an on-line news article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41609536/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?GT1=43001
It's about an "informant" that admits he lied to the US about his knowledge of UMDs. This is really not news, as we all know the information was bad. But buried in the article is the fact that 100,000 Iraqui civilians were killed in the war. Why is it the news agencies don't think that's important? Why do they never mention that? Are Iraqui children somehow human trash, and their deaths are only a side bar?
Why? Why? Why?
That the "informant" lied is irrelevant; when it came to WMDs Hussein fooled every intelligence organization in the West, as well as his own generals.
ReplyDeleteThe "100,000" number comes from Beth Osborne Daponte and is universally regarded to be far higher than reality; actual civilian deaths during combat were a few hundred, and about half of those were due to one errant missile. The Coalition is very, VERY careful about civilians, probably more so than in any war in history. But some "newspapers" quote that number anyway, without attribution. You may take comfort in knowing that since the US "occupation" Iraqi civilians are much better off than before the war, mainly due to restoration of and creation of basic infrastructure such as clean water, hospitals, and electricity. And WAY better off than when Hussein murdered a million of them in the front lines in his seven-year war with Iran.
Sorry, that's a soapbox of mine. No nation on Earth does more to avoid unnecessary death of civilians, or does more to take care of them after hostilities cease, than the USA. And the generosity of our country has made the world a far, far better place than it would be without us.