Friday, June 03, 2005

SADDAM'S CASUALTIES-WAR CASUALTIES: Which is worse?

In the process of exchanging “ideas” with liberals, I’ve found they don’t believe my sources and I don’t believe theirs, so the primary function is just an intellectual exercise. What I’ve discovered too is that, if a liberal web site with its blatant liberal biases, doesn’t conform to the liberal preconceived prejudicious the left attacks it with the same vitriol as they attack conservatives.

It’s most apparent when Iraqi war casualty numbers are given, those numbers are universally rejected. A liberal web site tabulating those killed, claims more than 24,800 have died in the Iraq fight for independence. Liberals universally claim “hundreds of thousands dead”

Saddam and sons were responsible for the deaths of an average of about 350 people for every day he was in power. Here’s the hypocrisy of the left: Were Saddam still in power for the approximate 730+ days since the war began, 255,500 more, mostly of his own people, would be dead at his hand.

So the liberal argument is that the unfortunate deaths of 24,800 in a war of freedom, is worse than the murder of 255,500 by Saddam. To put it another way, roughly 34 people have died per day (average including the skewed IBC figure since it includes suicide bomber murders) during the two years of the war as opposed to 350 per day under Saddam murderous dictatorship. The insurgents will be defeated and their reign of death will end. So I ask, which is worse?

4 comments:

frstlymil said...

Um...it's not that we don't believe your sources - it's that despite repeated requests, you still haven't given any sources. Bill O'Reilly's like that. He hates being asked for back up and just starts turning red and screaming "Shut Up! Shut Up!" (Al Franken interview, Fox News). Links? Credited quotes? History book references? Anything?

NewGnome said...

frstlymil,

responded last night, but ol' Blogspot didn't enter it and I didn't find out until this morning. So I'll try again. Don't watch O'Reilly, no cable, don't listen either. Your problem is that you apparently can't add and subtract and extrapolate. Worse, your post reveals you don't even know how to ask the question. You can get the answer without me. That's your problem not mine. In case you're wondering it's called critical thinking.
It really is a simple math problem.

frstlymil said...

So you're saying you WON'T support your statements with verifiable back up and that your readers are simply to accept your nonsense as truth, or attempt to run down non existent sources ourselves? Just who on Earth were you a journalist FOR? There isn't a junior high school history class you could get away with that with, let alone anyone else. Trying to say, p'shaw, it's a math problem is beyond absurd. So again, where are you getting your information - the argument will stop if your facts can actually be verified.

NewGnome said...

Frstlymil, Since you are either incapable or unwilling to figure this out for yourself, I've posted a copywrited blog. You may check out the figures for yourself. The fact that you say that it's "a math problem is beyond absurd" says a lot about your inability to think critically. With you. it's all emotion not thinking. By the way the sources are there too and are mostly left-wing sources. You can argue with them if you wish to deny the figures. Which I expect you'll do.