Replies

8. US pressures and the positions taken by the Spanish government and other governments are causing divisions and eventual breaks that affect the process of the construction of Europe. It is not France and Germany that are dividing Europe but rather those responsible are the governments that put priority on good relations with Washington.

There was some Freeper mole at an planning meeting for the FEb 15 rallies. He said it was mentioned the "Europe" wanted a huge turnout. I thought at the time that he meant European antiwar orgs, but maybe I should have taken that sentence literally.

9. In Europe as well as the United States, there is a strong opposition to the war. The apparent anti-Americanism is not against American society but is rather a criticism to the current team in power and its attitudes against the multilateral system.

Damn those peaceniks anyway. May they all get what's coming to them.

One of the most stupid but effective arguments against US liberation of Iraq is that "the US is going to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians--like what was done in Gulf War I and Afghanistan".

So I did some reaserch and found the following facts to counter these outrageous lies.

For one thing, the US military does not target civilians like the Russians or any other Communist military forces.

(1-4 from AP):

1. ALLIES: Of more than 540,000 Americans deployed at the peak of the fighting, 148 were killed and 467 wounded.

2. 24 British servicemen killed, 9 by U.S. fire, with 10 wounded. 2 Frenchmen killed, estimated 25 wounded. Italian airman killed. Allied Arab casualties totaled 39.

3. IRAQ: Baghdad put its losses at 75,000 to 100,000 soldiers killed in action and 35,000 to 45,000 civilians killed by allied bombing.

4. U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency estimated 100,000 Iraqi soldiers killed and 300,000 wounded, and 2,500 to 3,000 Iraqi civilians killed by bombing. It said accurate information was so scant that these figures had error factor of at least 50%.

5. The Iraqi ruling Baath party's daily, Al Thawra, said "U.S. and British air raids on civilian targets during the six-week conflict killed 8,243 civilians, including 2,010 women and 520 children under the age of four." (Iraq Resource Information Site, 2/17/02)

So, from these sources of estimates (they are only estimates and eliminating the Baghdad one), the maximum number of civilians killed during Gulf War I was maybe 8,243 (Iraqi daily) to 2,500 (USDIA). Therefore, 100,000 civilians were NOT killed in that war. Totally bogus claim. 100,000 Iraqi soldiers were killed. None too few.

Afghanistan is interesting. There is only "source" of estimate that is used over and over by the peaceniks on the number of civilians killed during the recent Afghanistan war:

1. According to a study released 12/10/01 by Marc W. Herold, Professor of Economics, International Relations, and Women's Studies at the University of New Hampshire, more than 3,500 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan by U.S. bombs. He is using various estimates throughout the war to come up with a total. I haven't added up his numbers yet, but his estimate is based on newspaper estimates (some are highly questionable sources). He is also using kill-to-tonnage of bombs dropped ratios which are highly suspicious (kind of like global warming modeling).

2. Interesting to note that during the Afghan Civil War 1990-1996:
In 1994 alone, an estimated 25,000 were killed in Kabul; most of them civilians killed in rocket and artillery attacks--killed by their warlords.

3. And during the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan (1979-89), the Soviets killed 1.3 million people and forced 5.5 million Afghans (a third of the prewar population) to leave the country as refugees. Another 2 million Afghans were forced to migrate within the country. Where were the peaceniks then?

I would be interested in the other arguments that were used by the peaceniks (not the emotional ones like Bush is a killer, etc.), but the "facts" cited by them, so that we can get the real facts and better counter them the next time or in dealing with the press.