Bush Has Killed More Human Beings

[MS36]

BUSH HAS KILLED MORE HUMAN BEINGS THAN ALL THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE WORLD>>>COMBINED!!!!

Bush and his American military have killed over 30,000 innocent,babies, children, women and men in Iraq and Afghanistan,WHICH IS WAY MORE HUMANS KILLED THAN FROM ALL THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE WORLD COMBINED.

There have been about 20,000 American troop casualties in Iraq and almost 500 American troops have been killed.

http://www.opednews.com/hackworth1203_saddam_in_slammer.htm

The American corporate media is told by the government not to report the casualty figures>>>WHY and is this freedom of the press???.

The Iraqi war has cost the American taxpayer about 165 billion$$$$$$$$$.so far and counting

IS THE PRICE THAT AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND INNOCENT IRAQI CIVILIANS HAVE PAID IN BLOOD WORTH THE OUTCOME???

IS AMERICA ANY SAFER BECAUSE OF ALL THIS AND THE SUPPOSED CAPTURE OF SADDAM??? AMERICA IS ON AN ORANGE TERRORIST ALERT NOW!

Cheney's Haliburton, Bush's Carlyle, Rumsfelds Bechtel corporations and other Bush connected corporations seem to be the only ones benefitting and making billions of $$$$$$ from this unnecessary bloodbath.

WHEN ARE THE TROOPS COMING HOME???

AND WHEN WILL THE AMERICAN HUMANS SCREAM OUT "STOP THIS UNNECESSARY KILLING"???

When will Republicans and Democrats alike see the Bush government insanity and stop this insane killing and bloodbath??? Or are Americans so blind from their PROPAGANDA BRAINWASHING by their government and the war industrial complex???

STOP THE KILLING OF HUMAN BEINGS BY ANYONE!!!!

CAPTURE BUSH AND HIS GANG OF KILLERS AND THIEVES AND BRING THEM TO JUSTICE IN A WORLD COURT FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANIY.

 

[r3volut!on]

eh...

I'm with you, but, seriously, you lose a lot of credibility when you rant like a crazy person.

 

[jimnyc]

The American corporate media is told by the government not to report the casualty figures>>>WHY and is this freedom of the press???.

Is that true? Links please!

I think it's more like the military has stated that THEY aren't going to be keeping track of Iraqi casualties.

The Iraqi war has cost the American taxpayer about 165 billion$$$$$$$$$.so far and counting

Money well spent! Glad to hear even you guys who so vehemently oppose the war are supporting it anyway! LOL

IS THE PRICE THAT AMERICAN SOLDIERS AND INNOCENT IRAQI CIVILIANS HAVE PAID IN BLOOD WORTH THE OUTCOME???

YES

IS AMERICA ANY SAFER BECAUSE OF ALL THIS AND THE SUPPOSED CAPTURE OF SADDAM??? AMERICA IS ON AN ORANGE TERRORIST ALERT NOW!

YES

Cheney's Haliburton, Bush's Carlyle, Rumsfelds Bechtel corporations and other Bush connected corporations seem to be the only ones benefitting and making billions of $$$$$$ from this unnecessary bloodbath.

How about you post figures to support your claims. I know a NYT article was posted here the other day showing that Halliburton has made 'peanuts' off of their work in Iraq. Care to show us the billions that the others are making?

WHEN ARE THE TROOPS COMING HOME???

When the job has been completed. Until then there will be rotating duties.

AND WHEN WILL THE AMERICAN HUMANS SCREAM OUT "STOP THIS UNNECESSARY KILLING"???

Some wackos have been screaming this from day one. Luckily, those voices have been ignored.

When will Republicans and Democrats alike see the Bush government insanity and stop this insane killing and bloodbath??? Or are Americans so blind from their PROPAGANDA BRAINWASHING by their government and the war industrial complex???

Your entire post is nothing more than propoganda!

CAPTURE BUSH AND HIS GANG OF KILLERS AND THIEVES AND BRING THEM TO JUSTICE IN A WORLD COURT FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANIY.

Oh brother! ET phone home!

 

[gertha]

My first post!

You're post, ms36, was... contradictory and mundane, but entertaining in a childlike manner.

Did you get that from the current newsletter from James Carville's "Democrats for Dummies"? You might want to try and educate yourself on the facts (meaning: do your own research) before standing on your paper soapbox to claim an original thought.

The Iraq war was valid just on the idea of SH's removal, but the benefits towards world peace and terrorism are overwhelming. Libya, a known terrorist country, saw the smack down that GW put on Iraq and decided to change their ways. All of this without firing a shot. How many lives, civilian and military, do you think were saved by the result of the removal of SH and Lybia discontinuing their NUKE PROGRAM? Maybe America is the big dog in the world, but there has to be one to preserve peace, in our current world. It's an ugly job, but it has to be done. Obviously SH wasn't listening to the U.N. I scold my dog most of the time, but sometimes he needs a smack on the ass when he shits in the house right after I walk him. Do you understand that everyone now knows that the U.S. will back up it's threats? Do you realize now that when the U.S. tells countries at war to settle their differences they will?

I will search this forum, but I'm sure that I will not find, for threads where you screamed about all the senseless killings of the Kurds in the north, or the Shiites in the south. Hmm... where were you then? Oh I am sorry, it did not politically benefit you at the time. Why don't you post a thread about how Clinton knew this, and allowed it to continue. I'm sorry, you were probably writing something about the many Clinton bombing raids right?

Now, sit down and read before you speak.

 

[jimnyc]

Welcome to the board, gertha!

 

[gertha]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Welcome to the board, gertha!

Merci!

 

[bamthin]

Originally posted by gertha

The Iraq war was valid just on the idea of SH's removal, but the benefits towards world peace and terrorism are overwhelming.

...Supporters argue that Iraq’s leadership must be eliminated because the Ba’ath regime has continued the development of weapons of mass destruction, and might again use those weapons against an opponent , or supply the weapons to terrorist networks. The invasion plan seeks to preempt any danger by eliminating the leaders who might authorize such attacks or assist others to do so. This strategy is based on a conception of preemptive self-defense. Preemptive self defense,
however, is clearly unlawful under international law. Armed action in self-defense is permitted only against armed attack. Some scholars have argued over the years that preemptive self-defense should be considered lawful, but the United States as a government has consistently supported the prohibition on such preemptive use of force. The United States has taken this position for compelling reasons of national security and in light of its national values. It is joined in this position by the vast majority of the international community. Thus, the reality is that the United States has no right to use force to prevent possible, as distinct
from actual, armed attacks. The further reality is that the United States does not advance its security or its moral standing in the world by doing so.


ASIL pdf

Imagine now, any country can just invade another on the pretext that it "perceived the country to be a threat". Does the US get a different set of international rules? Should the rule be changed to state

"Any country who can clearly defeat another country that has been crippled by sanctions for 10+ years may invade that country if they percieve them to be a threat. If the invading country is scared of a different country, like say North Korea, then diplomacy should be employed as the best option"

Originally posted by gertha
Libya, a known terrorist country, saw the smack down that GW put on Iraq and decided to change their ways.

Read the Libya thread in this forum.

Originally posted by gertha
I will search this forum, but I'm sure that I will not find, for threads where you screamed about all the senseless killings of the Kurds in the north, or the Shiites in the south. Hmm... where were you then?

Actually, the Kurd gassing episode happened on Ronny Reagan's watch. He even sent Rummy over to pat Saddam on the back and tell him to keep up the good work. The Shia slaughters...hmmm...I think Papa Bush is the one that hung them out to dry after Desert Storm. Deserted them in the final hour and then let Saddam swoop in with his helicopters in violation of the no-fly zone that was set up to protect the Shias. I think you will find both of these fine American moments if you search the threads.

Originally posted by gertha
Now, sit down and read before you speak.

I suggest you take your own advice.....


-Bam

 

[critictrue1]

gertha quoted Muslims+Jews+Christianity= God It's all the same.
should be +Christians nes pas?

Maybe it has to do with what is written in their religious texts?

From the Talmud (a book all Jews must study like Christians study the Bible):

Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

Sanhedrin 59a: "A Goy (Gentile) who pries into the law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

Libbre David 37: "To communicate anything with a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly.

" Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is of three years of age.

" Sanhedrin 105ab: "Jesus fornicated with his jackass.

" Gittin 57a: "Jesus is in hell and is being punished by being boiled in semen. Christians are boiled in dung.

" Schabouth Hag. 6b: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording.

" Zohar 1,160a: "Jews must always try to deceive Christians." Hilkkoth Akum Z1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death.

" Choschen Ham 388, 15: "If it be proven that someone has given the money of israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of this earth."

Choschen Ham 266, 1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely if by so doing Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

 

[Moi]

I'm sorry but this post makes no sense. I could just dismiss your post as the rantics of a lunatic, but I'll try to offer some logic:

When this article speaks of "casualties" they aren't speaking of deaths only. So, to say that Bush has "killed more human beings than all the terrorist attacks in the world" and use 500 military deaths to back it up is ridiculous.

Even if I accepted the numbers in this article, which I DON'T, 20,000 "casualties" which includes merely injuries- how many "casualties" occur within the military during non-combat times? I am quite sure it's not zero.

Additionally, most estimates of how many Iraqis killed up to the day Bagdad fell are commonly around 2,500. So, if the totals of those two numbers equals the numbers in one terrorist attack (the WTC attacks) how can you possibly state that we've killed more than all attacks worldwide?

As for the argument that money is at stake, I for one would rather spend the money getting rid of my enemies than just about anything else the government spends on. If the number spent is actually $165 billion than it's a mere 7.5% of the overall budget. That's practically insiginificant. How much money is spent on welfare? foreign aid? subsidies of the arts? social services? and other stupid wastes of money?

I could understand if you are against war, there is some validity to how people feel about killing. However, your argument that Bush is worse than all the terrorist attacks worldwide and that it's a waste of money aren't persuasive, they're laughable.

I suggest that next time you wish to make a point, you actual make a point. Not just rant and rave using fabricated statistics and stating things that are patently false and completely impossible.

 

[bushin04]

Originally posted by jimnyc



Money well spent! Glad to hear even you guys who so vehemently oppose the war are supporting it anyway! LOL

Only 13 percent of that money actually goes to the re-construction of Iraq

 

[chip4200]

Originally posted by bushin04
Only 13 percent of that money actually goes to the re-construction of Iraq

Good morning. This is my first post here. If that figure of 13 percent is true, then we have gotten a lot of bang for our buck. There are a lot of things over in Iraq that haven't been reported by the news media. Here are some things that I guess never made the "all the news that's fit to print" qualification:

Over 60,000 Iraqis now provide security to their fellow citizens. Nearly all of their 400 courts are now functioning thanks to a team of 13 US District Court Judges that went over their to help them establish a new judicial system, and now their judiciary is fully independent and functioning on it's own. On October 6, 2003, electrical power generation surpassed 4,518 megawatts, which exceeded the pre-war average. All 22 universities, 43 technical schools, as well as most primary and secondary schools are now open and educating Iraqi citizens. By October 1, 2003, Coalition forces had rehabilitated 1,500 schools, which is 500 more than scheduled. Teachers are now earning 12 to 25 times their former salaries. All 240 hospitals and more than 1200 clinics are now open. Doctors are earning at least 8 times what they were under Saddam. Pharmacutical distribution has gone from essentially nothing under Saddam to 700 tons in May to a current level of 12,000 tons. The Coalition has helped administer over 22 million vaccines to Iraqi school children. A Coalition program has cleared over 14,000 kilometers of Iraq's 27,000 kilometers of weed-choked canals, which now irrigate tens of thousands of farms. This also created over 100,000 jobs for Iraqi men and women. Iraq now has one of the world's most growth-oriented investment and banking laws. The central bank is fully independent, and Iraq has it's first single unified currency in over 15 years. Baghdad's first democratic transfer of power in 35 years happened when the city council elected it's new chairman. Chambers of commerce, business, school, and other professional organizations are electing their leaders all over the country. The Iraqi Government is now regularly being represented in events like the Arab League, the World Bank and IMF, the Islamic Conference Summit, and the UN General Assembly. For the first time in 35 years, in Karbala thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgramage of the 12th Imam. Uday and Queasy are no longer feeding innocent Iraqis to the zoo lions, having the young daughters of local leaders raped in order to force cooperation, or torturing Iraq's soccer players for losing games. Political opponents are not being imprisoned, tortured, maimed, or executed...or being forced to watch their innocent family members suffer the same for disagreeing with Saddam.

Also, in the region, Saudi cities and towns will now hold municipal elections, Qatar is reforming it's education system to give parents more choices in how to educated their children. Jordan is working on market economic reforms, and has made it a priority item. The Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to a Muslim Iranian Woman who speaks out with courage and conviction for peace, democracy, and human rights.

Why has so little of this been reported in the establishment news media? All you ever hear about is the "failure" in Iraq. Also, look at the fact that members of Congress fought Bush on every aspect of his handling of the war and post-war reconstruction. They know about this stuff. They get reports from the people over there doing the job. That's where this information came from.

While I realize that there are people, myself included, who would love to see all our troops come home, and having served for 26 years in the US Air Force, I know many people that have served over there, there is still work to be done. Yes, it's going to cost money, and yes, unfortunately there are going to be people killed. However, let's also look at an overview of what we've accomplished. Iraq, under US lead control has come further in six months then Germany did in seven years, and Japan did in nine years following WWII. Military deaths from people who fanatically suppored Hitler and the Emperor numbered in the thousands, and went on for over three years following the surrenders.

From everything I've studied about this war, and believe me, I wanted answers just like every other person, I think it was fully justified. While there was the threat, and/or potential threat of WMDs, I think it went further than that. We decided that the straw had broken the camel's back. We were no longer going to allow Middle Eastern Islamic terrorists to do their handiwork. It was time to start changing the face of the Middle East. Bring prosperity to that region, and not just prosperity for the war lords and oil sheiks, or a brutal dictator who killed millions of his own people while he took the oil revenues from the amount of oil that the UN allowed him to sell. Rather than use that money to feed his people like the UN Resolution required, use it to try to develop a nuclear weapons program and build himself huge palaces. Not only that, we had to maintain troops in Saudi Arabia in order to keep that area stabilized and Saddam contained. By empowering the good people of Iraq with some form of a constitution, and helping establish a prosperous democratic Arab country in the Middle East will do wonders to help prevent terrorism around the world. To my brothers and sisters in the US Military and Coalition forces, I say this: "Thank you for a job well done."

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by bushin04
Only 13 percent of that money actually goes to the re-construction of Iraq

Hiya RTM!

Bye RTM!

 

[lilcountriegal]

Excellent post chip, thank you.

Welcome to the board!

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Originally posted by MS36
BUSH HAS KILLED MORE HUMAN BEINGS THAN ALL THE TERRORIST ATTACKS IN THE WORLD>>>COMBINED!!!!

And your precious liberals have killed more tiny babies.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
And your precious liberals have killed more tiny babies.

Thats quite an extreme generalization, wouldn't you think?

I've met quite a few 'conservatives' who were pro-choice, just as I've met a handful of 'liberals' that were quite against freedom of choice.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

And your precious liberals have killed more tiny babies.

I'm on the liberal side, but I have not and am against killing babies,as I am against the conservative side of killing grown men.

 

[wonderwench]

Oh Puh-Leeeeeze.

500 Americans have died so far to liberate Iraq as well as Afghanistan. It is estimated that Saddam killed nearly 1M of his subjects alone.

If you really want to get a grip on death by government, I recommend the following resource.

(Here's a clue: the deadliest regimes are totalitarian, not democracies or republics).

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
I'm on the liberal side, but I have not and am against killing babies,as I am against the conservative side of killing grown men.

I disagree. By helping to elect the liberal officials who support killing them you ensure their deaths.

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Thats quite an extreme generalization, wouldn't you think?

I've met quite a few 'conservatives' who were pro-choice, just as I've met a handful of 'liberals' that were quite against freedom of choice.

Only Anarchists can truly claim the "pro-choice" label.
But, in answer to your question, no, it's not. If you look
at the congressional record, you'll see who's pro-life and
who is not. The overwhelming majority of elected officials
who support abortion is liberal.

At any rate, it's much less of an exaggeration than blaming bush
entirely for every death in the Middle East. Let me remind you
that he had the backing of congress. I would guess that
there are fewer Democratic pro-lifers than there are Democrat
war opposers.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Only Anarchists can truly claim the "pro-choice" label.

wrong. I'm certainly not an anarchist and I'm pro-choice. I happen to hope they choose life, but I'm pro-choice.

if you look at the congressional record, you'll see who's pro-life and who's not

are you seriously going to try to tell me that the congressional record reflects the majority of opinions of the people? I've seen two congressman stand up for the people, the others have stood by their party. pro-life and pro-choice by politicians are rarely more than a stand to get a vote.

The overwhelming majority of elected officials who support abortion is liberal

I wasn't talking about elected officials, I was talking about the everyday american.

it's much less of an exaggeration than blaming bush for every death in the middle east

Thats exactly what I meant about generalizations.

he had the backing of congress

no shit, the spineless bastards.

there are fewer Democratic pro-lifers than there are Democrat war opposers

are you referring to elected officials again or are you talking about the american people this time?