Iraq Surrenders.

Even if this is not accurate, even if there were more deaths under Saddam, The USA can’t afford to be the world’s policeman and rid the world of all tyrants.

Bush Disagreed with the Lancet, which means it has Zero credibility now.

But every other study they have done is ok. Just not that one.

So you are not allowed to bring that up.

Go find the lowest estimated Iraqi death toll, and that will be the official US stance.

I think http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ is the one most people rely on, because the number, curiously has been roughly 65,000 since the Lancet was published.

Whats peculiar is when Saddam's gassing of the Kurds is pointed out, the largest possible number is given, but when Bush's death toll is tallied, it is the lowest number.

Under his regime, documented chemical attacks, from 1983 to 1988, resulted in the deaths of some 30,000 Iraqis and Iranians. It has been estimated that Saddam Hussein’s 1987-88 campaign of terror—which included mustard gas and nerve agent attacks—destroyed 2,000 Kurdish villages and killed at least 50,000 Kurds, and perhaps as many as 200,000.
http://www.realtruth.org/news/061230-rt-alert-saddam.html

And when you google "Saddam Gasses Kurds" ALOT of links questioning whether or not Saddam in fact Gassed the Kurds.
 
I wish everyone wouldnt have to write a dissertation, and just make a point.

Oh, Larkinn. The U.S. cant save the world. Especially without the help of the rest of the world, if ive learned anything. The U.S. cannot go it alone, it doesnt work. Perhaps, the U.S. should help people, but the first people it should help is its own citizens, not illegals.

our second people to help is our allies, third is everyone else

We cannot save mexico from itself or any one else from their own corruption and stupidity.



Pure human decency.



Too many times people speak out against "America bashing" when really someone is merely providing a valid criticism of America.



Its thinly veiled racism.

originally posted by CSM



And why exactly, considering the US has vastly more than it needs to survive, while Somalia has vastly less than it needs to survive?



I never claimed that it did, merely offering a correction of fact for you.



SOB means son of a bitch, which has nothing to do with the marital status of your parents. The key part of that was selfish, the rest was just rhetoric designed to strengthen the selfish claim.



What does people having to sneak have to do with the moral fibre of our nation? People sneak in because we have the strongest economy in the world, and they are in Mexico, which has a terribly weak economy.



Sure if the goal is to be sanctimonious. Rather, my goal is to make this country a better place to live, and improve its treatment of foreigners both at home and abroad. There ARE problems with this country, even you must admit that. Rather than attacking anyone who points those out, I would like to try and address those problems so they can be fixed.



Education level does not determine IQ. Rather, as was pointed out on another thread, it is your view that is stupid, not neccessarily you. But when you take one thing someone says and generalize to an entire population, as you just did, yes it makes you seem stupid.



Concentrating on what the US does right will do...what exactly? Give me a feeling of pride which will help people....how? Its the same reason I don't respond to peoples posts I agree with. I see no reason for a circle jerk of agreement either here, or in my political stance towards the US. I focus on things I think are wrong with the world, and hence need changing, as opposed to focusing on things that are right with the world...those I think I can generally ignore, since they are right, and work. I don't go outside every day to my car and look under the hook and sit there because I want to bask in it actually starting and running every day.

And the great Satan I want it to be? What the hell are you talking about? Did you miss that part where I said the US acts better than most other nations? This is the kind of shit that is ridiculous in this country. Someone criticizes the US and suddenly they hate the US and think its the great Satan? No, sorry, the US does a lot of good around the world and is, as I said before and you conveniently ignored, better than most nations. But that does not mean that it can't be validly criticized.



We are talking about moral issues and right and wrong, of course its all opinion. And no, its not colored by a dislike of the US, so no, despite me being pretty clear about it you seem to have no idea where I stand.



I should have added hypocritical when I went back and saw the names you have called me.
 
I can bring up whatever i want :)

Bush Disagreed with the Lancet, which means it has Zero credibility now.

But every other study they have done is ok. Just not that one.

So you are not allowed to bring that up.

Go find the lowest estimated Iraqi death toll, and that will be the official US stance.

I think http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ is the one most people rely on, because the number, curiously has been roughly 65,000 since the Lancet was published.

Whats peculiar is when Saddam's gassing of the Kurds is pointed out, the largest possible number is given, but when Bush's death toll is tallied, it is the lowest number.


http://www.realtruth.org/news/061230-rt-alert-saddam.html

And when you google "Saddam Gasses Kurds" ALOT of links questioning whether or not Saddam in fact Gassed the Kurds.
 
My question is, who and what is killing them?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LAN410A.html

Study: 100,000 Excess Civilian Iraqi Deaths Since War…

They found that the risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher than before the war.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/10/AR2006101001442_pf.html

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred….According to the survey results, Iraq's mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people; in the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The difference between these rates was used to calculate "excess deaths."

http://vitw.org/archives/745

The Lancet, the world’s leading medical journal, has published an estimate that 98,000 Iraqis have died because of the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This estimate (usually approximated to 100,000 deaths) includes Iraqi civilians and insurgents, and includes all causes of death, both violent and nonviolent. The 100,000 figure is likely to be an under-estimate.

Naturally, the right-wing establishment dismisses the study. It goes after it with a magnifying glass and fine-tooth comb looking for fallacies. It will also post opinions and questions and criticisms of the study.

Even if this is not accurate, even if there were more deaths under Saddam, The USA can’t afford to be the world’s policeman and rid the world of all tyrants.
 
I wish everyone wouldnt have to write a dissertation, and just make a point.

Poor you, having to engage in complicated thoughts. What will you ever do?

Oh, Larkinn. The U.S. cant save the world. Especially without the help of the rest of the world, if ive learned anything. The U.S. cannot go it alone, it doesnt work. Perhaps, the U.S. should help people, but the first people it should help is its own citizens, not illegals.

It can't save the world. But it can make it a hell of a lot better.
 
Are you always an arrogant prick, or does it take practice?

It can make it better, but that's not the responsibility of the u.s. government or its citizens. And frankly, why should the u.s. be responsible, when the rest of the world sits on its I dont care ass.

Oh, and unlike you, i dont need 4 paragraps to make a point. I dont like b.s., i get my point, quickly, and move on, so just chill dork.




Poor you, having to engage in complicated thoughts. What will you ever do?



It can't save the world. But it can make it a hell of a lot better.
 
CSM... I don't necessarily doubt your list, but I was under the impression that we had closed down, Subic Bay, Cubi Point and Clark AFB. What other US military installations are still in the PI?
 
Are you always an arrogant prick, or does it take practice?

It can make it better, but that's not the responsibility of the u.s. government or its citizens. And frankly, why should the u.s. be responsible, when the rest of the world sits on its I dont care ass.

Oh, and unlike you, i dont need 4 paragraps to make a point. I dont like b.s., i get my point, quickly, and move on, so just chill dork.

No, he was not born like that nor did he practice

It is a normal trait of most liberals
 
Are you always an arrogant prick, or does it take practice?

It takes being around people who deserve it. Don't bitch about how much others write.

Oh, and unlike you, i dont need 4 paragraps to make a point. I dont like b.s., i get my point, quickly, and move on, so just chill dork.

The world isn't that simple. I don't bullshit, I explain as clearly, quickly, and articulately as I can. Sometimes that takes time.
 
It takes being around people who deserve it. Don't bitch about how much others write.



The world isn't that simple. I don't bullshit, I explain as clearly, quickly, and articulately as I can. Sometimes that takes time.

Who deserve it - anyone who disagrees with you?

The world is pretty simple. It is either right or wrong. Of course libs do not want to be judgemental
 
On NPR, a Cautious NYT Optimist and a WashPost Pessimist on Iraq: 'Holding Steady in Hell'
Posted by Tim Graham on June 27, 2007 - 22:48.
On Tuesday, National Public Radio displayed two very different takes on the current situation in Iraq from reporters for The New York Times and the Washington Post.

John Burns of The New York Times was the cautious optimist on the Tuesday edition of NPR’s Day to Day (in partnership with the liberal site Slate.com):

As for Senator Lugar's assessment that they've overestimated what they can do, I think it's a little early to say that. In the last few days I've been at several places around Baghdad where the offensives are underway. I've been out in Ramadi, where as you know, Anbar province has been the most remarkable reduction in violence. And there's no doubt that this surge is having an effect, that al-Qaida for the time being at least appears to be on the back foot. Can that be sustained? Probably too early to tell.

It's worth remembering that the surge troops, the last of them, went operational on June the 15th. That's only about, as you know, 10 days ago. These offensives are likely to continue for 60 to 90 days. So I think it's fair to say that the military has scored some spectacular gains in Anbar, which I hope they can export to Diyala, and to the areas south of Baghdad, where al-Qaida have major strongholds, and we'll see where it goes.

Thomas Ricks of The Washington Post was the deliverer of doom on NPR’s Talk of the Nation on the same day:

I think the biggest single thing that struck me was on every previous trip, I think I've been on seven previous trips to Iraq, every time I've been there, things have been notably worse than on the previous trip. People always say it can't get any worse than this, and it did. First thing that struck me was it's not any better, but it's not any worse than it was, the last time I was there.

The second thing that struck me - I mean, you know, but we're talking about degrees of hell, basically. You know? It hadn't descended from the ninth to the 10th circle. It is still on the ninth circle of hell. It's not a great improvement to us to be holding steady in hell.

Ricks acknowledged that violence is down in Anbar, but didn't have any confidence about the bigger picture. Both reporters expressed disappointment that there weren’t better political developments on the ground, a "surge" in the Iraqi government that would compare to the American troop surge.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13786
 
Just like Michael Ware from CNN who reports from Baghdad. I half expect that guy to commit suicide on the air he is so unrelentingly depressing and negative about the surge results. Honestly, I have seen the guy report 6 or 7 times about the surge and he has not said anything positive whatsoever. He did not even mention the recent defeat of Al Qaeda in Baquba, north of Baghdad. Of course the Michael Ware perspective is the same that CNN generally gives about Iraq.
 
Just like Michael Ware from CNN who reports from Baghdad. I half expect that guy to commit suicide on the air he is so unrelentingly depressing and negative about the surge results. Honestly, I have seen the guy report 6 or 7 times about the surge and he has not said anything positive whatsoever. He did not even mention the recent defeat of Al Qaeda in Baquba, north of Baghdad. Of course the Michael Ware perspective is the same that CNN generally gives about Iraq.

Mr Ware? The CNN "reporter" who admitted he drinks on the job?

No joke - he actually said that
 
Mr Ware? The CNN "reporter" who admitted he drinks on the job?

No joke - he actually said that
I have not heard about drinking, but this is the Aussie I was referring to:

MichaelWare.jpg
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top