Keith Devens .com

Have you been in Iraq? No. Is it because you're not old enough? Most probably. I won't argue that. But you might have been one of those missing - ie. killed - guys, and please don't defend Bush for that. I'm from Norway, and we're fed up with those so-called "allies"; Norwegians don't see Bush as an ally. Trust me!

And - about those missing explosives;
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/200...9040-1cb1-42f9-aa11-dd53abd2e2f0.html

What were the Americans thinking when they invaded another country? Were they thinking? Has the world been a safer place after that? No. Please. No more Bush-America! WE are allies! We don't want to support this stupid shit, but we have to, 'cause the Americans gets angry if we don't act like "allies".

Greetings from Norway. And - seriously - I speak for the majority. Even the britains, it seems, as they want Homer Simpson as president.

please don't defend Bush for that

I'll defend Bush all day long for his decision to go into Iraq. It always blows my mind that so many people are so upset that we removed a brutal dictator from power.

Anyway, you may want to check out President Bush's response to other concerned Norwegians such as yourself. You also reminded me of this Cox & Forkum cartoon.

Removing Saddam Hussein isn't relevant as long as the war has caused the death of 100,000 civilians in Iraq.

Does Bush plan to attack all the other countries with a dictator in power? Does he? Why do you think he choosed Iraq? Because of the weapons of mass destruction? Where are they?

100,000? Come on. That's 10x larger than even Iraqi Body Count claims.

...and one of the persons behind that project, Scott Lipscomb, says "that the actual count must be much higher" and that he has "no trouble in believing that this many people have been killed". The Iraqi Body Count project only counts for the deaths reported in the press.

I don't consider the Lancet report to be credible. I also find it hypocritical of you to apparently not care that Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis intentionally, while you throw a fit when we kill some unintentionally (despite all our efforts to avoid them by using precision weapons), as is the nature of war, while liberating the country. You're simply not serious. Your complaint about civilian casualties is merely a proxy for your opposition to the war based on other reasons. If you want to start being honest and discuss those other reasons, feel free to continue the discussion.

Here's a commentary on the Lancet report that I intend to read (via IP).

Here's one more article debunking the Lancet study at Slate (to read), via InstaPundit.

All studies involving statistics may be inaccurate. However, as long as the Iraq Body Count site is reporting only civilian deaths reported by the press, the number must be higher than 14-16,000.

Anyway. That number is still way too high. I'm aware that war means death of civilian people, though it's a shame, but this war was an invasion by the USA searching for weapons of mass destruction (which they never found). The war was - and still is - based on a lie.

It's always nice getting rid of a dictator in a world, but no other country can invade another country just to get rid of the existing government. You didn't answer my question: Why Iraq? Why not one of the other countries? And will USA attack other countries which is led by a dictator? Will they?!

I doubt it. So it seems that the USA didn't attack Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction. Or the dictatorship. Or the link to al-Qaede. What was? What was it that made Bush make a decision to kill more than 1,000 of his own people?

You questioned my reason for opposing the war. In case you haven't noticed: You don't make war based on lies. You don't make needless wars. When did Iraq attack USA?

And - just to emphasize one thing. As a foreigner, my primary concern about Bush is the war in Iraq and other foreign issues.

There are however, times when I feel sorry about the American people;

Flip-Flop
Taking Bush at His Word
100 Facts and 1 Opinion