Granted these numbers might be inflated--the story itself says it was unclear if they were limited just to deaths from killings--but even the more conservative AP counts have at least 1,500 Iraqi civilians killed...during May and June!!!!
I have a question for the supporters of the war, who think it is good for the Iraqi people. Is there any number of Iraqi civilian deaths that would render the invasion a bad idea, at least on the criterion of helping Iraqis? I realize there is an argument that it's not Bush's fault that insurgents are blowing up people, and I'm asking that, whatever your thoughts on that matter, surely there is some point at which no invasion would have been better.
So I wonder: If, say, one million people died in a single year--and not because of US troops or bombs but from terrorists--would Bill Kristol stop justifying the occupation as good for the Iraqis? Is there some number at which even he couldn't say that with a straight face? If so, what's the ballpark of the number?
"The more fervently all human energies are thrown into the great enterprise of salvation through world -- immanent action, the farther...
Declares LewRockwell.com : "All of this means that while the government has been artificially propping up the economy and 'stimu...
Is shaping up nicely .
The language won't die, but that doesn't mean the programmers won't ! Funny quote: '"Just because a language is 50...