Dear Bob,
"You could get the names of anyone who perished if they really perished in that war, "

You see, that's the claim that really puzzles me, the idea that an American could find the names of Iraqi casualties. Could a citizen of Minnesota in 1864 find the names of recently-deceased Alabama soldiers who were fighting for the Confederacy? Could an American in 1952 find the names of Chinese and North Korean soldiers who had died in human wave attacks against American/ROK positions? I was a history major in college and I find the whole assertion really baffling. Who in the US could possibly care less about the names of soldiers who died from being on the other side of the conflict?

Why am I being such a hard-ass about facts and documentation and accuracy? Well, right now, the New York Times just published a piece about how Iranians were committing acts of war against the US in Iraq.
tinyurl.com/36doj9

This is an EXTREMELY important story where the documentation for the accusation is EXTREMELY thin. The Times is being very careless with a very important issue.

Many people remember that the Times was also quite casual about printing the accusations of Judith Miller and, sure enough, it turned out that her accusations about Saddam Hussein having WMD were just so much bilgewater.
PhillyIMC wants articles on our site to be based on facts, documented, proven facts.
Get back to us when you have some facts to report.
- Hide quoted text -

Rich

Robert MeadeDear Rich,
Go read Bush Daddy Delusions. There was no war until Congress declared it in January regardless of the troop buildup. You could get the names of anyone who perished if they really perished in that war, for the media would not try to conceal such a thing. Saddam killed those Iraqi soldiers. The advancing troops found those bodies. They were trying to surrender; thus Saddam killed them. There was no Operation Desert Sabre whatsoever. It was a total fabrication, saying that they were driving Saddam out of Kuwait for a second time. No one died. Not one allied soldier died. Go chew on that. Bob


On 7/3/07, Rich Gardner <mattcable2506-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Bob,
There was no ground combat until 1/16 not because anyone was attempting any sort of negotiation, but because that's how long it took to get US tank and infantry formations into Saudi Arabia so that they could then invade Kuwait/Iraq. I had several buddies who were over there and were close to the action. They never said anything that contradicted the official news reports.

Not sure how I'd get the details you're looking for, the names, date of death, etc., of any of the Iraqi soldiers who died, neither am I sure of how I'd get the names of fallen North Vietnamese soldiers in the 1970s, or of fallen North Korean soldiers in the 1960s or of fallen German and Japanese soldiers in the 1950s. Their native countries probably kept records, but those records could easily have gotten lost or destroyed.

I notice that you can't explain the picture of burned Iraqi corpses, nor do yout appear to be able to explain the picture of the wrecked and scattered vehicles. Neither picture is consistent with the idea of a Jonestown-type mass suicide or of killing of Iraqis by other Iraqis. I would say that as I've produced documentation and you haven't, I'd say the burden of proof is on you. A burden you haven't yet met.

"How many poopheads have to repeat it...?" Well, more than just you, that's for sure. You're the only person I'm aware of who holds the absurd theory that no Iraqi soldiers died via hostile action in 1991. My theory accords with the documented facts as they're expressed in the Wikipedia and on Yahoo Documents. Your theory is not consistent with any of the photos that I've ever seen, nor does it fit with any of the stories that I've ever heard.

If you are aware of any sources that accord with what you say, I'll be happy to take a look at them, but as skeptical as I am of official government sources, so far I've seen no reason to reject their version in favor of yours.
Rich

Robert Meade wrote:
Dear Rich,
You sound like a broken record. The invasion was not the start of the war. They tried to negotiate with Saddam until 1/16/91. There was no fatalities from 1/16-2/7/91. Where in hell did you get your info from. How many poopheads have to repeat it before you consider a lie to be true. Name one damn person who died in that war, his date of death, and where and how he died. You cannot do it because everything you are supporting has been fabricated. Bob Meade


On 7/2/07, Rich Gardner <mattcable2506-AT-yahoo.com > wrote:
education.yahoo.com/
confirms my memory of the Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein ordered his army to invade Kuwait in August 1990. THAT was the beginning of the Persian Gulf War. The Coalition counter-strike occurred over a very short period of time beginning on 16 January 1991. The confusion you're displaying arises from the difference between a "battle" and a "war." A battle is to a war as a chapter is to a book or as a post is to a blog.

As Ray pointd out to you (We had a good chuckle over your claim that no one died in the Gulf War), proving that people died in the Gulf War through standard, ordinary means is kind of like proving that the Holocust occurred. There's plenty of evidence, but it occurred overseas, so one must know how to get ahold of it. As you might remember, I managed to get ahold of pictures of burned Iraqi corpses and destroyed Iraqi vehicles. You've produced no counter-explanation to demonstrate how such things could have happened without airstrikes.

Had you travelled over to Iraq and examined the battlefield, were you able to speak Arabic, had you any familiarty with the culture over there, you might be able to make a case that you had some sort of clue as to what you were talking about. As it is, you just sound as though you were producing a lot of conspiracy theories.
Rich