Iraq’s Dead – Based On A True Story

My wife once asked, "What does 'based on a true story' mean?"

I told her it means that, quite possibly, absolutely nothing in the film she was about to see was actually true, that when she saw, "This is a true story," she could expect it to be substantially true."

Such is the case with liberals and their stories about war casualties, and in the case of Iraq, lack of same.

It started with the Vietnam aftermath, and that story culminated last week when John Kerry actually stated that bloodbaths and persecutions in the wake of America's pullout "didn't happen," the fact that it did – in Cambodia, Vietnam, and Laos – notwithstanding.

It later became a favorite tactic among liberal loons to manufacture a figure for the dead Iraqis for which America was responsible – then double or triple it as the need arose.

No one doubts that a lot of civilians have perished in Iraq. All we know for certain is that the actual number is a fraction of what liberals claim it is. But we have no way of knowing how many were the result of American action, and even then, the important figure would be, how many could have been avoided?

And if you could derive that number, then you would have to subtract the number of Iraqis who would have died at the hands of Saddam Hussein if he were still in power and further speculate as to how many would die in the future because of Hussein, and subtract that as well.

Then you might have something resembling a realistic figure of Iraqi dead for which America was responsible – and it, in all likelihood, would be a negative number.

Now it's true that those Iraqis Saddam killed would likely be different than the ones we killed – there being a greater likelihood that the ones Hussein beheaded, shredded and dropped from buildings would have been friendlier to us.

And now, another Hussein D-(very) Ill., the one Aput probably likes,  has decided that an Iraqi genocide is worth the risk as long as we are long gone.

That almost makes it hard to decide which Hussein is/was worse, doesn't it?

But then, we'll never have to make that determination, since, all the history writers being liberal, a future Iraqi genocide never happened.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Iraq’s Dead – Based On A True Story

  1. You mean the Hussein whose an American candidate for President whose probably been to Malaysia while his parents were staying in Indonesia…?Yeah, I like him.Here's the thing. If America actually cared for how many Iraqis died during Saddam's tenure, then Bush 1.0 would have decided to go in before the Gulf War, during the war of Iraq-Iran when they gassed the Kurds.Only when Saddam was a threat to oil did America do anything.As for the number of Iraqi casualties, I'm still undecided. Part of me wishes to believe that Iraq did not lose the amount of people which Snowy posts now and then. But then, I didn't even manage to mentally grasp the loss of life during the 26th December tsunami.

  2. TedWest says:

    Even after all we've been through, I didn't fully realize just how perverse your thinking can be. Yet you know I like you because I wouldn't do this for just anybody, especially in light of the probability that you'd be more than happy to cast the first stone.
    But now I don't know how long I can go on finding the humor and good intentions in some of the things you say and believe – like the idea that Snowie actually knows something.
    Didn't you find it curious that she had not known about the positive Op-Ed in the Times before Dox brought it to her attention? I mean, I did. So what kind of wacko left sites does she frequent such that the Times isn't radical enough for her?
    Regarding Iraqi casualties, all we know is that some people died, and that number is infinitely lower than it would have been if another country had invaded – so low in fact that it's dwarfed by those Hussein killed and those killed by terrorists. But that's the easiest thing to deal with in what you've said.
    You probably missed the statement by the darker, less hairy, Hussein, so let me summarize it: this scumbag is perfectly willing to accept any number of Iraqi deaths since all that matters to him is that we get out.
    Then again, maybe you like scumbags?
    As a side note that I think is applicable here, Senator Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, is being investigated, and I really hope they find something to nail him on – because he, too, is a scumbag, albeit an rather insignificant one compared to BHO. And I was thinking today, that the other side, of which you are clearly a member, would never feel that way if one of their number became a suspect in anything, apparently up to and including, genocide.
    Now this is really important: America doesn't care about anybody. It can't. That's because America is a country, not a person. So Bush 1 may not have cared enough, and his advisors may not have cared enough, but the fact that they didn't push on to Baghdad had nothing to do with caring about Iraqis, and everything to do with the fact that YOU wouldn't have approved of it, and that he felt it would be a mess he wasn't prepared for.
    But now, curiously, you didn't mention oil with respect to Bush 1? I mean if that's the overriding factor for "America," why did he not take Baghdad then despite not caring about Iraqis?
    You see, you can't tie any of your disparate beliefs together coherently, They are just disjointed conclusions you've arrived at without evidence and logic, simply because that's what you want to believe.
    More importantly, we neither invaded Iraq in '03 because we cared about Iraqis nor for oil. Not that they weren't factors, but the main reason we invaded Iraq (and I'm telling you a secret liberals don't know) is because Hussein represented an increasing threat in the wake of 9/11, and he was both a distraction and an opportunity in the war on terror.
    If you don't understand all that, it's probably because it's the first time you're seeing it, but trust me, once you know the facts, It'll all make sense.
    And now, here's where the "caring about Iraqis" part really comes into play: we can only do so much, but we do have an obligation to do all we can reasonably do to see that wanton slaughter doesn't occur when we leave. AND EVERY GUY YOU LIKE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THAT.
    So it makes me wonder, why shoud I? And the reason is because I'm not a callous and demented liberal to whom human life is a chess piece.
    Now let's dispose of your oil misconceptions so that you won't have to be preoccupied with ancillary matters any further.
    Since I've already explained that we didn't knock over Hussein because he was a "threat to oil," I'll just say that if we had, it would have been PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE. I'll leave it to you for now to figure out why, but if you can't, get back to me and I'll help you through it.
    Now I'd be lying if I said this wasn't getting tiresome. You seem to want to arrive at rational conclusions, and you seem to have more than enough intelligence to do so, so why do you continue to leap to conclusions and readily embrace unsubstantiated assertions.?
    Do you even realize the gaping holes in what you've written above? if you say you do, I may have to move to Missouri.

  3. B.O. wants to talk to Iran and So. Korea. Hah! What a cartoon that would make.B.O. wouldn't stand a chance with these two pro's. They'd eat him for lunch and throw his bones to their dogs. If he is the VP on the ticket with Hillary, that will be a major factor in his duties and I think we will be in a world of hurt, if that happens. This guy is playing off his race card as unique. The first black to be in the White House. Sounds good to blacks. They think it is overdue, no matter if the guy is smart enough to do the job. That doesn't matter, only the color of his skin in what is important. I am sure there are brighter, smarter, more capable blacks than B.O.

  4. TedWest says:

    Colin Powell would have had a real shot at being President, but for whatever reason, he didn't run. I would have voted for him at the time.
    Had he won, it could have changed the course of history because the opposition would have had far less justification for hating him, and it could have freed blacks from Democratic tyranny.
    And we know his reaction to 9/11 would have been different, and it would be interesting to see if that was for better or worse. Of course to know that, we'd also have to know what we already know about how Bush handled it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s