Keep Bashing France

In article ,
Scott MacEachern wrote:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 21:20:57 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

You mean 800 to 1200. That range you used is from the same guy who did
the Afghan "body count" site, which had a tendency to take the largest
numbers, add them together, and not cross-check for multiple reports,
recording three to six times the number the *UN* got...

Nope, sorry, wrong again. Those numbers are from the Iraq Body Count
site (www.iraqbodycount.org), not started by Marc Herold....

Same methodology, same mistakes.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 03:12:12 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Same methodology, same mistakes.

Nope, somewhat different methodology, actually. One wonders if under
these circumstances you believe the lists of _American_ casualties
that come out... often just one source, don't y'know? (FWIW, I do
believe them.) And as I said, there's been one pretty major indepedent
survey that has come to generally similar results.

Scott

strange, Excellent Mister Mickey Rumsfeld meet Saddam Hussein in 1983 during
war Iran-Irak, but just to sold some pesticide ?

Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in
a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean
firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave"
attacks.

A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents,
including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US
companies, under licence from the commerce department.

Just for pesticide

Are you sure you n US never provide military help to Saddam Hussein ?

and in the same time US provide military help to Iran (irangate)
--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"John Mullen" wrote:

There really isn't any point in arguing here. This is a guy who believes
all
criticism of the USA is tantamount to communist propaganda.

No, it's just "a guy" who keeps reading some very badly written stories
that claim the opposite of what's actually happening in this case.

'Actually' meaning 'in your opinion, unsupported by any facts'

He also believes that the situation in Iraq is currently getting
better day by day,

On the other hand, since we have actual evidence that things in Iraq
*are* getting better every day, the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

'Actual' meaning 'in your opinion, unsupported by any facts'

and that anyone who says different is a lefty propagandist.

Well, in this case, it's more that the folks who fell for some of these
stories are pretty far left-wing (when you see sources like Common
Dreams, it's far left bordering on the Socialist at *best*).

And calling some of those sites "propagandists" is being kind.

It just isn't worth it.

Of course it's worth it. You might actually learn something some day.
Such as "you need better news sources."

I might. I doubt if you will though. Sigh.

John