U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 4,000

[ConcordCowboy]

U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 4,000


White House calls milestone 'a sober moment' :rolleyes:

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080324/080324-4000dead-hmed-8a.h2.jpg
The remains of Army Cpl. Christopher John-Lee West, one of the 4,000 U.S. servicemembers killed in Iraq, are buried at Arlington National Cemetery in February.



BAGHDAD - U.S. officials said Monday they will press forward in the fight against extremists in Iraq a day after the overall U.S. death toll in the five-year conflict rose to 4,000.

The White House called the grim milestone “a sober moment” and said President Bush spends time every day thinking about those who have lost their lives in battle.

“He bears the responsibility for the decisions that he made,” White House press secretary Dana Perino said. “He also bears the responsibility to continue to focus on succeeding.”


The American deaths came Sunday, the same day rockets pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone in Baghdad and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide.

No group claimed responsibility for the Green Zone attacks, but suspicion fell on Shiite extremists based on the location of the launching sites.

The deaths of four U.S. soldiers in a roadside bombing about 10 p.m. Sunday in southern Baghdad pushed to 4,000 the number of American service members killed as the war enters its sixth year. Another soldier was wounded in the attack, the military said.

The Associated Press count of 4,000 deaths is based on U.S. military reports and includes eight civilians who worked for the Department of Defense.

“You regret every casualty, every loss,” Vice President Dick Cheney said. “The president is the one that has to make that decision to send young men and women into harm’s way. It never gets any easier.”

An American military official in Baghdad said each U.S. death is “equally tragic” and underscored the need to keep up the fight.

“There have been some significant gains. However, this enemy is resilient and will not give up, nor will we,” military spokesman Navy Lt. Patrick Evans said. “There’s still a lot of work to be done.”

2007 the deadliest year

Last year, U.S. military deaths spiked as U.S. troops sought to regain control of Baghdad and surrounding areas. The death toll has seesawed since, with 2007 ending as the deadliest year for American troops at 901 deaths. That was 51 more deaths than 2004, the second deadliest year for U.S. soldiers.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians also have been killed since the U.S.-led invasion on March 20, 2003, although estimates of a specific figure vary widely because of the difficulty in collecting accurate information.

One widely respected tally by Iraq Body Count, which collects figures based mostly on media reports, estimates that 82,349 to 89,867 Iraqi civilians have lost their lives in the conflict.

Overall attacks also have decreased against Iraqi civilians but recent weeks have seen several high-profile bombings, highlighting the fragile security situation and the resilience of both Sunni and Shiite extremist groups.


The U.S. Embassy said two government employees — an American and a Jordanian — were seriously injured and six other people required medical attention after Sunday’s volley of rocket attacks.

Local hospital and police officials said at least 12 Iraqis were killed and 30 more were wounded in rocket or mortar blasts that apparently fell short after being aimed at the Green Zone from scattered areas of eastern Baghdad.

The heavily fortified area has frequently come under fire by Shiite and Sunni extremists, but the attacks have tapered off as violence declined over the past year.

The attacks followed a series of clashes last week between U.S. and Iraqi forces and factions of the Mahdi Army, the biggest Shiite militia loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

Security officials in Basra relieved of duty
Al-Sadr has declared a cease-fire through mid-August to purge the militia of criminal and dissident elements, but the militia has come under severe strains in recent weeks.

Al-Sadr’s followers have accused the Shiite-dominated government of exploiting the cease-fire to target the cleric’s supporters in advance of provincial elections expected this fall and demanded the release of supporters rounded up in recent weeks.

Also Monday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki relieved the top two security officials in Basra, Iraq’s second-largest city, officials said. The move is a sign of growing concern about security in the nation’s oil capital since British forces handed over control of the city last year.

Two Iraqi officials said the police chief of Basra, Maj. Gen. Abdul-Jalil Khalaf, and the commander of the city’s joint military-police operation, Lt. Gen. Mohan al-Fireji, have been replaced.

But the two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not supposed to release the information.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23771735/

[Cajuncowboy]

I knew this would be a thread on here.

Good thing you weren't around during WWII

You would have nothing but these threads on the first 10 pages.

Thing is that we have lost fewer military personnel in this war than we did in the first 20 minutes at Normandy.

[Jon88]

Here's something that makes me mad, 97% of all US military personel have been killed after Bush declared "Mission Accomplished."

[Cajuncowboy]

Here's something that makes me mad, 97% of all US military personel have been killed after Bush declared "Mission Accomplished."

The original mission was accomplished. We removed Saddam from power. Then the muslim extremists came along. Two different deals there.

[zrinkill]

The original mission was accomplished. We removed Saddam from power. Then the muslim extremists came along. Two different deals there.

Sad that people do not get that.

[Cajuncowboy]

Sad that people do not get that.

At some point, they are either gonna have to understand that or just live out their lives with a lie on their lips.

Again, though, it's just something used to bash Bush with. Foundation or not.

[Hostile]

I knew this would be a thread on here.

Good thing you weren't around during WWII

You would have nothing but these threads on the first 10 pages.

Thing is that we have lost fewer military personnel in this war than we did in the first 20 minutes at Normandy.One of my neighbors was in the Battle of Normandy on D-day. His name is Bill, and the death toll counts in Iraq offend him more than anyone I have ever met.

[Jon88]

At some point, they are either gonna have to understand that or just live out their lives with a lie on their lips.

Again, though, it's just something used to bash Bush with. Foundation or not.

The mission is giving Iraq a steady democracy and then leaving. That's what the mission is.

[Cajuncowboy]

The mission is giving Iraq a steady democracy and then leaving. That's what the mission is.

Maybe that's what the mission is NOW. Not in the beginning it was removing Saddam and giving Iraqis their country back.

[Cajuncowboy]

One of my neighbors was in the Battle of Normandy on D-day. His name is Bill, and the death toll counts in Iraq offend him more than anyone I have ever met.

I don't blame him one bit.

[Jon88]

Maybe that's what the mission is NOW. Nut in the beginning it was removing Saddam and giving Iraqis their country back.

With no plan for democracy. And hummers with no doors on them.

[Cajuncowboy]

With no plan for democracy. And hummers with no doors on them.

You think it would have been this difficult had the muslim extremists not shown up?

I don't know why people want to blame America, or Bush or whoever for this when it's obvious who the ones to blame are.

[Bizwah]

You think it would have been this difficult had the muslim extremists not shown up?

I don't know why people want to blame America, or Bush or whoever for this when it's obvious who the ones to blame are.

No.....it's easier to blame ourselves.

I remember after 9/11 everyone was rushing to place the blame on Bush, airline security, our policy with Israel.

Me? I always blamed that idiot Bin Laden.

[Bizwah]

I knew this would be a thread on here.

Good thing you weren't around during WWII

You would have nothing but these threads on the first 10 pages.

Thing is that we have lost fewer military personnel in this war than we did in the first 20 minutes at Normandy.

Or the Civil War.

Lincoln was dogged as much as Bush was. McClellan (his own commanding General called him...the "original gorrilla".

His war was one GIGANTIC failure after another.

[Jon88]

You think it would have been this difficult had the muslim extremists not shown up?

I don't know why people want to blame America, or Bush or whoever for this when it's obvious who the ones to blame are.

You're right, but a lot of mistakes have been made. Had they not, Rumsfeld would still be in office.

[Cajuncowboy]

You're right, but a lot of mistakes have been made. Had they not, Rumsfeld would still be in office.

Rummy was a scapegoat.

[Jon88]

Rummy was a scapegoat.

Well, he was fired. No getting around that.

[Cajuncowboy]

Well, he was fired. No getting around that.

Maybe mistakes were made, but this is a totally different war from any other in history. To make someone a scapegoat over this is kinda dumb.

And he resigned. He wasn't fired.

[Jon88]

Maybe mistakes were made, but this is a totally different war from any other in history. To make someone a scapegoat over this is kinda dumb.

And he resigned. He wasn't fired.


Bush asked for his resignation. That's the same as being fired IMO.

[SuspectCorner]

Maybe that's what the mission is NOW. Not in the beginning it was removing Saddam and giving Iraqis their country back.

Oh, give it a rest. "The Mission" is to gain a strategic toe-hold in that portion of the world located above two-thirds of the worlds remaining oil reserves.

If you still believe it's about noble concepts like "freedom" and "democracy" - then I know I can count on you to line up and graze heartily, like the good sheep you are, upon all the subsequent propaganda campaigns the world's corporate-political powers throw your way.

[ConcordCowboy]

Oh, give it a rest. "The Mission" is to gain a strategic toe-hold in that portion of the world located above two-thirds of the worlds remaining oil reserves.

If you still believe it's about noble concepts like "freedom" and "democracy" - then I know I can count on you to line up and graze heartily, like the good sheep you are, upon all the subsequent propaganda campaigns the world's corporate-political powers throw your way.

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/0/c/bush_sheep.jpg

[heavyg]

Oh, give it a rest. "The Mission" is to gain a strategic toe-hold in that portion of the world located above two-thirds of the worlds remaining oil reserves.

If you still believe it's about noble concepts like "freedom" and "democracy" - then I know I can count on you to line up and graze heartily, like the good sheep you are, upon all the subsequent propaganda campaigns the world's corporate-political powers throw your way.

You give the whole war over oil a rest. If that was the case why is oil over $100 per barrel? We have Iraq. We could have all the oil we want right now. Why don't we? Because it isn't about the oil. And on top of that we could have all the oil in the world but that will not matter if the tree huggers don't let us build more refineries

[sacase]

With no plan for democracy. And hummers with no doors on them.

In your infinite military experience do you know why thre were no doors on the hummers?

[Doomsday101]

You give the whole war over oil a rest. If that was the case why is oil over $100 per barrel? We have Iraq. We could have all the oil we want right now. Why don't we? Because it isn't about the oil. And on top of that we could have all the oil in the world but that will not matter if the tree huggers don't let us build more refineries

I agree I don't think it is all about oil and don't forget Iraq is still a member of OPEC who sets the prices. There is no doubt that what makes this part of the world of strategic importance is the fact that a large portion of the world’s oil supply is in that region and in my view makes it important for stability within the region and not be in the hands of extremist.

[heavyg]

I agree I don't think it is all about oil and don't forget Iraq is still a member of OPEC who sets the prices. There is no doubt that what makes this part of the world of strategic importance is the fact that a large portion of the world’s oil supply is in that region and in my view makes it important for stability within the region and not be in the hands of extremist.

From what I understand we have plenty of oil in reserve. But we can not do anything with it because we do not have the refineries. If we want to lower gas prices. Build or repair some refineries.

[zrinkill]

Oh, give it a rest. "The Mission" is to gain a strategic toe-hold in that portion of the world located above two-thirds of the worlds remaining oil reserves.

If you still believe it's about noble concepts like "freedom" and "democracy" - then I know I can count on you to line up and graze heartily, like the good sheep you are, upon all the subsequent propaganda campaigns the world's corporate-political powers throw your way.

:lmao2: Still the old "Blood for War" argument that those who do not follow politics or the wars believe.

[iceberg]

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/0/c/bush_sheep.jpg

now i know what the anti-bush people look like. waiting like sheep to pounce on anything they can blame on him.

like katrina.

baaa-baaaa-blaaaaaame buuuusshhhh!!!!! bleet bleet!!!!

[Doomsday101]

From what I understand we have plenty of oil in reserve. But we can not do anything with it because we do not have the refineries. If we want to lower gas prices. Build or repair some refineries.

Yes we have oil in reserve but that does not make supplies in the Middle East unimportant it is to us as well as many other around the world. Most of the Middle East countries want to do business with us somehow that is evil in some people’s minds and because of the actions of extremist groups we are supposes to avoid all transactions with friendly Middle East Countries? I don’t get that.

[iceberg]

Yes we have oil in reserve but that does not make supplies in the Middle East unimportant it is to us as well as many other around the world. Most of the Middle East countries want to do business with us somehow that is evil in some people’s minds and because of the actions of extremist groups we are supposes to avoid all transactions with friendly Middle East Countries? I don’t get that.

'surface level thinking' most people tend to do. see it, interpret it in our own way, that's the way it is. no need to "dig deeper"

digging deeper is where reality usually is.

[ConcordCowboy]

now i know what the anti-bush people look like. waiting like sheep to pounce on anything they can blame on him.

like katrina.

baaa-baaaa-blaaaaaame buuuusshhhh!!!!! bleet bleet!!!!

This is what we look like...get it right.

http://www.merryswankster.com/images/wolves2.jpg

[SultanOfSix]

You give the whole war over oil a rest. If that was the case why is oil over $100 per barrel? We have Iraq. We could have all the oil we want right now. Why don't we? Because it isn't about the oil. And on top of that we could have all the oil in the world but that will not matter if the tree huggers don't let us build more refineries

I think it had to do with Saddam starting to stop selling oil to the US due to the sanctions against his country, and more of it to China and other countries.

The reason it's $100 a barrel because Iraq is a mess, it has the third largest oil reserves in the world, little of it can be drilled and sold due to the instability that exists in the country, and the oild companies still need to maintain their profits due to greedy *******s that they are.

It's not just about oil, it's also about maintaining a power base as well. It's about as much to do with "freedom" and "democracy" only so much so that it can convince people that it is and divert them from the stronger ulterior reasons.

[heavyg]

I think it had to do with Saddam starting to stop selling oil to the US due to the sanctions against his country, and more of it to China and other countries.

The reason it's $100 a barrel because Iraq is a mess, it has the third largest oil reserves in the world, little of it can be drilled and sold due to the instability that exists in the country, and the oild companies still need to maintain their profits due to greedy *******s that they are.

It's not just about oil, it's also about maintaining a power base as well. It's about as much to do with "freedom" and "democracy" only so much so that it can convince people that it is and divert them from the stronger ulterior reasons.


But again we can have all the oil in the world and it don't mean a thing without refineries

[Doomsday101]

But again we can have all the oil in the world and it don't mean a thing without refineries

No doubt that is a contributing factor in why we are seeing the high gas prices but the world oil supply be it in the Middle East or some other part of the world is of importance to us as well as other nations.

[iceberg]

This is what we look like...get it right.

http://www.merryswankster.com/images/wolves2.jpg

you mean a pack of mindless wolves who thinks it's ok to attack someone just cause you don't like 'em?

[Doomsday101]

you mean a pack of mindless wolves who thinks it's ok to attack someone just cause you don't like 'em?

I thought he was talking about an animal who likes sniffing each other’s butts. :lmao:

[Cajuncowboy]

Oh, give it a rest. "The Mission" is to gain a strategic toe-hold in that portion of the world located above two-thirds of the worlds remaining oil reserves.

If you still believe it's about noble concepts like "freedom" and "democracy" - then I know I can count on you to line up and graze heartily, like the good sheep you are, upon all the subsequent propaganda campaigns the world's corporate-political powers throw your way.

:lmao:

Really?

[iceberg]

I thought he was talking about an animal who likes sniffing each other’s butts. :lmao:

or start "doing things" to your leg. :)

[superpunk]

So would this be an appropriate place to post the face mosaic, or is that off-limits for no apparent reason. :rolleyes:

http://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/louisville/archives/girl%20at%20Arlington%20cemetary.jpg

[heavyg]

So would this be an appropriate place to post the face mosaic, or is that off-limits for no apparent reason. :rolleyes:

http://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/louisville/archives/girl%20at%20Arlington%20cemetary.jpg

YOu know if the lady in this picture posted this picture I wouldn't have a problem with it. But for you to put it on here to further your anti-bush / anti-war agenda is very offensive. Do you know this lady is against the war? I'm not saying she is not saddened by her lose. Who wouldn't be. But there are alot of military families who have lost loved ones in this War but still support its cause and our President

[superpunk]

YOu know if the lady in this picture posted this picture I wouldn't have a problem with it. But for you to put it on here to further your anti-bush / anti-war agenda is very offensive. Do you know this lady is against the war? I'm not saying she is not saddened by her lose. Who wouldn't be. But there are alot of military families who have lost loved ones in this War but still support its cause and our President

She should cheer the hell up.

Consider it a cost-analysis situation. On the one hand, you've got 4,000 dead soldiers, and their mourning families. On the other hand, you've got a pointless war with no real plan or end in sight.

I'm sure all the families are thrilled that their sons and daughters went over there under the guise of protecting their country from an imminent threat only to find out that they died for no real reason other than some doofus politicians back in the states told them to.

[Cajuncowboy]

YOu know if the lady in this picture posted this picture I wouldn't have a problem with it. But for you to put it on here to further your anti-bush / anti-war agenda is very offensive. Do you know this lady is against the war? I'm not saying she is not saddened by her lose. Who wouldn't be. But there are alot of military families who have lost loved ones in this War but still support its cause and our President

I agree, it is beyond pathetic and should be removed.

[Cajuncowboy]

She should cheer the hell up.

Consider it a cost-analysis situation. On the one hand, you've got 4,000 dead soldiers, and their mourning families. On the other hand, you've got a pointless war with no real plan or end in sight.

I'm sure all the families are thrilled that their sons and daughters went over there under the guise of protecting their country from an imminent threat only to find out that they died for no real reason other than some doofus politicians back in the states told them to.

Well, that's just a flat out lie.

[superpunk]

Well, that's just a flat out lie.
Enjoy the doublethink. Some of us can remember why they were sent over there in the first place.

[heavyg]

She should cheer the hell up.

Consider it a cost-analysis situation. On the one hand, you've got 4,000 dead soldiers, and their mourning families. On the other hand, you've got a pointless war with no real plan or end in sight.

I'm sure all the families are thrilled that their sons and daughters went over there under the guise of protecting their country from an imminent threat only to find out that they died for no real reason other than some doofus politicians back in the states told them to.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Thank you for putting words into their mouths. :bang2:

[Doomsday101]

She should cheer the hell up.

Consider it a cost-analysis situation. On the one hand, you've got 4,000 dead soldiers, and their mourning families. On the other hand, you've got a pointless war with no real plan or end in sight.

I'm sure all the families are thrilled that their sons and daughters went over there under the guise of protecting their country from an imminent threat only to find out that they died for no real reason other than some doofus politicians back in the states told them to.

I have heard from families who have lost loved ones in this war and still believe in what these men and women are doing. I don't pretend it is all families but there are many who do not feel as you do.

[Sasquatch]

Consider it a cost-analysis situation. On the one hand, you've got 4,000 dead soldiers, and their mourning families. On the other hand, you've got a pointless war with no real plan or end in sight.

Don't forget to include the few hundred thousand dead Iraqis and millions of refugees in that analysis.

Thank you.

[sacase]

Don't forget to include the few hundred thousand dead Iraqis and millions of refugees in that analysis.

Thank you.

Why do the anti war people just like to make up huge numbers and expect any rational thinking person to belive them.

So you really think that 300,000 Iraqi's are dead?

[Sasquatch]

Why do the anti war people just like to make up huge numbers and expect any rational thinking person to belive them.

So you really think that 300,000 Iraqi's are dead?

Even the most conservative estimate is around 100,000 with a few scholarly studies asserting numbers that are considerably higher.

Iraq's civilian dead: why US won't do the maths

Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iraqs-civilian-dead-why-us-wont-do-the-maths/2008/03/20/1205602581835.html)

March 21, 2008



Lieutenant-General Tommy Franks, who led the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan during his time as head of US Central Command, once announced, "We don't do body counts." This blunt response to a question about civilian casualties was an attempt to distance George Bush's wars from the disaster of Vietnam. One of the rituals of that earlier conflict was the daily announcement of how many Vietnamese fighters US forces had killed. It was supposed to convince a sceptical American public that victory was coming. But the "body count" concept sounded callous - and never more so than when it emerged that many of the alleged guerilla dead were in fact women and children civilians.


Iraq was going to be different. The US would count its own dead (now close to 4000), but the toll the war was taking on Iraqis was not a matter the Pentagon or any other US government department intended to quantify. Especially once Mr Bush had declared "mission accomplished" on May 1, 2003. After that, every new Iraqi who died by violence would be a signal he was wrong, and would show that a war conducted in the name of humanitarian intervention was exacting a mounting humanitarian toll of its own.


But people were dying, and every victim had a name and a family. Wedding parties were bombed by US planes; couples driving home at night were shot at checkpoints because they missed a light warning them to stop. In the last three weeks of April 2003, after Saddam's statue and his regime were toppled, US forces killed at least 266 civilians - a pattern of shooting as a first resort that has continued to this day.


So five years after Mr Bush and Tony Blair launched the invasion, no one knows how many Iraqis have died. We do know that more than 2 million have fled abroad. A further 1.5 million have sought safety elsewhere in Iraq. We know that the combined horror of car bombs, suicide attacks, sectarian killing and disproportionate US counter-insurgency tactics and air strikes has produced the worst humanitarian catastrophe in today's world. But the exact death toll remains a mystery.


There is no shortage of estimates, but they vary enormously. The Iraqi ministry of health initially tried to keep a count based on morgue records but then stopped releasing figures under pressure from the US-supported government in the green zone. The director of the Baghdad morgue, already under stress because of the mounting horror of his work, was threatened with death on the grounds that by publishing statistics he was causing embarrassment. The families of the bereaved wanted him to tell the truth, but like other professionals he came to the view that he had to flee Iraq.



An independent British research group, the Iraq Body Count, collates all fatality reports in the media where there are two or more sources, as well as figures from hospitals and other official sources. At least four household surveys have been done asking Iraqis to list the family members they have lost. The results have then been extrapolated to Iraq's total population to give a nationwide estimate.


The results range from just under 100,000 dead to well over a million. Inevitably, the issue has become a political football: the Bush Administration, the British Government and other supporters of the US-led occupation seize on the lowest estimates and opponents on the highest.


Trying to cut through the statistical jungle quickly becomes a battle over methodology and motives. Critics even raise the spectre of fraud and evidence faked for political reasons.


The initiators of the Iraq Body Count, which has produced the lowest figures, were no advocates of the invasion. John Sloboda, an Oxford psychologist, co-founded the group because he saw no official institution willing to count the human cost of the war. His group keeps a careful tab of the victims' age, gender, occupation, manner and place of death. In addition to providing a running total (which now numbers just under 90,000), its figures have allowed it to produce some of the best data on how the Iraq war has changed over five years. They reveal that the Americans killed four times more civilians in the first two years of the war than al-Qaeda-linked insurgents did.


The World Health Organisation and the Iraqi Health Ministry conducted a survey of 10,860 households last year. Ministry employees questioned 10 households in each of more than 1000 clusters across Iraq's 18 provinces. People were asked to list any family deaths in the two years before the invasion and the first three years after. The results showed that the national rate of killing between April 2003 and June 2006 averaged just over 120 a day. This was double the number killed during Saddam's last two years in power.

The study's figures ignored deaths from accident, disease or suicide. They estimated the civilian death toll in the occupation's first three years as 151,000. The true figure could be anywhere between 104,000 and 230,000 allowing for misreporting, they said. But even the lowest figure on this range is more than twice as high as the Iraq Body Count figure of 47,000 for the occupation's first three years. In December 2005 Mr Bush gave a figure of 30,000 civilian deaths.



The WHO/Iraqi Health Ministry study was published in the New England Journal Of Medicine in January. Dr Salih Mahdi Motlab al-Hasanawi, the Health Minister, said the survey was prompted by controversy over civilian casualties.


What he had in mind was the storm aroused by two studies led by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and published in The Lancet. In the first survey in 2004, 990 randomly selected families in representative locations across Iraq were asked to produce the death certificates and list the names of members who died between January 1, 2002, and the start of the invasion, and those who died thereafter. Subtracting the former from the latter, this produced an "excess" rate, used to calculate the deaths in excess of normal fatality rates in the country's total population.


The first survey found at least 98,000 such deaths up to October 2004. The second survey, in the summer of 2006, interviewed a separate but also randomly chosen sample of 1849 households and found an excess of 655,000 deaths up to June 2006, of which 601,027 were said to be from violence rather than natural causes. This amounts to 2.5 per cent of Iraq's population, or more than 500 deaths a day since the invasion.


The estimates were explosive and were widely reported around the world. They met instant dismissal from the White House and London. "I don't consider it a credible report," Mr Bush said. Mr Blair's spokesman said the study's result "was not one we believe to be anywhere near accurate".


The editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, admits the figure "seems crazy". "But the second study validated the first one. The pre-invasion mortality rate is the same in both, and the upward lines of the post-invasion rate are exactly the same."
He is particularly pleased by information unearthed last year by a freedom-of-information request by the BBC's Owen Bennett-Jones. This found that the chief scientific adviser to the British Ministry of Defence described the methods used by the second survey as "close to best practice". The adviser warned the Government to be "cautious" about criticising the findings .


The most detailed criticism of the Baltimore study appeared in the January issue of the National Journal, a right-of-centre magazine aimed at US policy-makers. It described the study's Iraqi field director, Riyadh Lafta, as "a child-health official in Saddam Hussein's ministry of health when the ministry was trying to end international sanctions against Iraq". It said he claimed high rates of child malnutrition during the sanctions period without giving data from the pre-sanctions period by which they could be measured. It alleged he and his interviewers for the study worked "under brutal political pressure" at a time when the ministry was controlled by Moqtada al-Sadr, the anti-occupation Shia religious leader.


The Johns Hopkins School of Public Health defends Dr Lafta, saying he was one of few doctors who never joined Saddam's Baath party. He has often worked with international groups since 2003 and "asked that he not be contacted by the media out of concern for his safety and that of his family".


Finally, it points out that more recent data suggests an even higher figure. The British polling firm Opinion Research Business asked 1720 Iraqi adults last summer if they had lost family members by violence since 2003; 16 per cent had lost one, and 5 per cent two. Using the 2005 census total of 4,050,597 households in Iraq, this suggests 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion.

[Jon88]

I agree, it is beyond pathetic and should be removed.


Don't be a fanatical Muslim about it ;)

It's free speech as long as it's not blood and gore.

[heavyg]

Even the most conservative estimate is around 100,000 with a few scholarly studies asserting numbers that are considerably higher.

Even at that. Do you have any idea how many were caused by our troops compared to the suicide bombers

[Jon88]

Why do the anti war people just like to make up huge numbers and expect any rational thinking person to belive them.

So you really think that 300,000 Iraqi's are dead?


I don't agree with that estimate either.

Getting back to your reply to one of my posts, no, I don't know why the hummers didn't have doors on them in the begining. I do know the troops complained about it though.

[Sasquatch]

Even at that. Do you have any idea how many were caused by our troops compared to the suicide bombers

http://www.facade.com/celebrity/photo/Colin_Powell.jpg

Pottery Barn Rule: You break it, you own it.

[trickblue]

Don't be a fanatical Muslim about it ;)

It's free speech as long as it's not blood and gore.

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/fs11/300W/i/2006/215/8/4/Shad0ws_Blood_Brush_Set_by_Shad0w_GFX.jpg http://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/louisville/archives/Al%20Gore.jpg

[heavyg]

http://www.facade.com/celebrity/photo/Colin_Powell.jpg

Pottery Barn Rule: You break it, you own it.

So your saying there were NO suicide bombings in the middle east before we got there?

[Jon88]

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/fs11/300W/i/2006/215/8/4/Shad0ws_Blood_Brush_Set_by_Shad0w_GFX.jpg http://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/louisville/archives/Al%20Gore.jpg

:laugh2:

That first picture is his global warming caused by carbon emissions argument.

[Jon88]

So your saying there were NO suicide bombings in the middle east before we got there?


No, he's saying it's our fault that the suicide bombings took place.

[vta]

We know that the combined horror of car bombs, suicide attacks, sectarian killing and disproportionate US counter-insurgency tactics and air strikes has produced the worst humanitarian catastrophe in today's world. But the exact death toll remains a mystery.

This guy should try visiting the Sudan, he might be forced to change his mind about that characterization.

It doesn't diminish what the Iraqi's are going through, but this kind of careless word play for political effect is unnecessary.

[ConcordCowboy]

you mean a pack of mindless wolves who thinks it's ok to attack someone just cause you don't like 'em?

You think maybe...just maybe he's done some things to get attacked for.

If you don't then there's nothing else to discuss.

[ConcordCowboy]

I thought he was talking about an animal who likes sniffing each other’s butts. :lmao:

Better than sniffing Bush's butt like you.

:p:

[Dallas]

Better than sniffing Bush's butt like you.

:p:

Ha! Some of the things you say man. I know full well you would never say these things to the person irl.

Curds. :lmao2:

[ConcordCowboy]

Ha! Some of the things you say man. I know full well you would never say these things to the person irl.

Curds. :lmao2:

I'm not too worried about it...I'm pretty sure he knows I'm just kidding him...as we have kidded each other before.

[ConcordCowboy]

:bang2:

:laugh2:

[ConcordCowboy]

That you for posting that!

....:p:

[superpunk]

I posted a much larger one.

That thread was deleted.

[ConcordCowboy]

I posted a much larger one.

That thread was deleted.

I didn't know that...I was wondering why you asked that question.

[heavyg]

I posted a much larger one.

That thread was deleted.

and this picture should be deleted as well. using the brave men and women who died for this country to futher an anti-bush agenda is offensive PERIOD!!

[zrinkill]

and this picture should be deleted as well. using the brave men and women who died for this country to futher an anti-bush agenda is offensive PERIOD!!

You think they care? Its the same kind of people who form anti-war protests at the funerals of soldiers.

Just ignore them.

[ConcordCowboy]

and this picture should be deleted as well. using the brave men and women who died for this country to futher an anti-bush agenda is offensive PERIOD!!

I didn't know it had been deleted earlier or I wouldn't have posted it.

[ConcordCowboy]

Just ignore them.

http://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/rsz/434/x/x/x/medias/nmedia/18/36/22/83/18463687.jpg...I won't be ignored zrinkill!

[superpunk]

and this picture should be deleted as well. using the brave men and women who died for this country to futher an anti-bush agenda is offensive PERIOD!!

It could have been a mosaic of congress, or any of the other idiots who are responsible for misrepresenting the reasons for war leading to 4,000 service men and women dying for absolutely nothing, leaving their families to try and rationalize their efforts by hoping that they've done something for the Iraqi's, only to continue to see ineptitude in leadership failing even that cause.

Not everything's all about the great Bush. But he is the leader. So he bears the brunt.

You think they care? Its the same kind of people who form anti-war protests at the funerals of soldiers.

Just ignore them.

I don't remember doing any of that.

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

[heavyg]

It could have been a mosaic of congress, or any of the other idiots who are responsible for misrepresenting the reasons for war leading to 4,000 service men and women dying for absolutely nothing, leaving their families to try and rationalize their efforts by hoping that they've done something for the Iraqi's, only to continue to see ineptitude in leadership failing even that cause.

Not everything's all about the great Bush. But he is the leader. So he bears the brunt.



I don't remember doing any of that.

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

Thats not the point. The point is you are using their deaths to further YOUR hate agenda againts Bush. Go ahead and deney if you want

[superpunk]

Thats not the point. The point is you are using their deaths to further YOUR hate agenda againts Bush. Go ahead and deney if you want

Denied.

Any other accusations?

[heavyg]

Denied.

Any other accusations?

None needed

[sacase]

Even the most conservative estimate is around 100,000 with a few scholarly studies asserting numbers that are considerably higher.

Iraq's civilian dead: why US won't do the maths

Sydney Morning Herald (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/iraqs-civilian-dead-why-us-wont-do-the-maths/2008/03/20/1205602581835.html)

March 21, 2008



Lieutenant-General Tommy Franks,


LOL The very first sentence is wrong. General Tommy Franks as in the 4 star variety. If you are a COCOM commander you are a 4 star general period. The article starts off inaccurate. If they can get something like a rank wrong I am sure the numbers are way off.

I think the US military put the number around 60,000, no quite sure but I know it was under 100,000.

[sacase]

I don't agree with that estimate either.

Getting back to your reply to one of my posts, no, I don't know why the hummers didn't have doors on them in the begining. I do know the troops complained about it though.

When I was apart of 25ID(L) we took off the doors from the vehicles one to keep them cooler, and two it was easier to get in and out of them and shoot from. I know for a fact that the 82nd Airborne did the same thing, hell it was a division standard. I would wager most light infantry did it as well.

Troops started complaining because of the road side bombs.

[Sasquatch]

LOL The very first sentence is wrong. General Tommy Franks as in the 4 star variety. If you are a COCOM commander you are a 4 star general period. The article starts off inaccurate. If they can get something like a rank wrong I am sure the numbers are way off.

I think the US military put the number around 60,000, no quite sure but I know it was under 100,000.

If you had continued reading, you'd see that the article surveyed a number of estimates, rather than privileging one over the others as you have done.

[ZeroClub]

U.S. death toll in Iraq reaches 4,000


White House calls milestone 'a sober moment' :rolleyes:

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080324/080324-4000dead-hmed-8a.h2.jpg
The remains of Army Cpl. Christopher John-Lee West, one of the 4,000 U.S. servicemembers killed in Iraq, are buried at Arlington National Cemetery in February.

Is this picture considered legal?

Somehow Bush-Cheney have fixed it so the news media cannot take or distribute photos of coffins coming home. I have no idea how the heck Bush-Cheney get away with the censorship (this isn't supposed to be China ...), but anyway, is there some reason why it is o.k. to photograph this flag drapped coffin?

[hank2k]

Is this picture considered legal?

Somehow Bush-Cheney have fixed it so the news media cannot take or distribute photos of coffins coming home. I have no idea how the heck Bush-Cheney get away with the censorship (this isn't supposed to be China ...), but anyway, is there some reason why it is o.k. to photograph this flag drapped coffin?

Actually its that they dont allow media coverage of coffins coming home to army bases.These bases are restricted anyway, so restricting the media even further isnt a big deal. Private funerals are something else.

Why remind the public that people are dying over there? Its a lot easier to support something when you dont have to make any real sacrifices other than buying a "patriotic" bumper sticker or ribbon.

[silverbear]

I knew this would be a thread on here.

I know you'd rather keep it a dark secret, how many Americans have died in this bogus war, but it is legitimate to keep a tally...

Thing is that we have lost fewer military personnel in this war than we did in the first 20 minutes at Normandy.

The difference being that World War II was a legitimate, even noble effort... Iraq is most assuredly not... so even if there were 10,000 deaths in World War II for every death in Iraq, the losses would still not be comparable...

[silverbear]

The original mission was accomplished. We removed Saddam from power. Then the muslim extremists came along. Two different deals there.

Which any fool could have predicted, making the "Mission Accomplished" crapola a RIDICULOUS piece of proaganda... it was an attempt to con the American people into believing that the worst was over, and you know it, when it obviously was a LOOOOOONG way from over...

[silverbear]

The mission is giving Iraq a steady democracy and then leaving. That's what the mission is.

And we're no closer to Mission Accomplished than we were the day Dubya stood on that carrier in front of that idiotic banner...

[silverbear]

You think it would have been this difficult had the muslim extremists not shown up?

This is gonna sound like an insult, so I'll say up front that I don't mean it that way, I mean this as a purely rhetorical question:

What kind of an idiot couldn't figure out that the muslim extremists would capitalize on our invasion of Iraq??

I don't know why people want to blame America, or Bush or whoever for this when it's obvious who the ones to blame are.

We are... we started this war in Iraq... and it had zippo, zero, zilch, nada, bupkis to do with the war on terrorism...

[silverbear]

No.....it's easier to blame ourselves.

I remember after 9/11 everyone was rushing to place the blame on Bush, airline security, our policy with Israel.

Me? I always blamed that idiot Bin Laden.

I did too... but "that idiot" is not now in Iraq, has not been in Iraq at any point since 9/11... so the invasion of Iraq obviously had nothing to do with "that idiot"...

I don't oppose the war effort in Afghanistan, I support that operation unequivocally... that's the one that's aimed at getting "that idiot"...

I really get sick and tired of watching the right invoke Osama bin Laden's name when they try to justify that invasion of Iraq... bin Laden had nothing to do with Iraq until after we invaded... he was actually an enemy of Saddam's, having financed rebellions by anti-Saddam Kurds in the north...

If you don't believe me, read the 9/11 Commission's report...

[silverbear]

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/0/c/bush_sheep.jpg

ROTFLMAO... that's wicked funny, CC...

[silverbear]

You give the whole war over oil a rest. If that was the case why is oil over $100 per barrel?

Because war destabilizes the output of oil... that in turn raises the price of oil, meaning that the oil bidness can make more of a profit on each gallon they refine...

And on top of that we could have all the oil in the world but that will not matter if the tree huggers don't let us build more refineries

If you think the oil companies WANT to build more refineries, you're deluding yourself... they like the price of gasoline right where it is, or higher if at all possible... that can't happen if you increase supply by increasing refining capacity...

[silverbear]

:lmao2: Still the old "Blood for War" argument that those who do not follow politics or the wars believe.

Yeah, it's all a COINCIDENCE, honest, that Halliburton is gettin' filthy rich off of this war, and that Dick Cheney was once a honcho at Halliburton...

And it's all a COINCIDENCE, honest, that Dubya comes out of the oil bidness, and his biggest backers are his oil buddies... and lo and behold, 7 years after Dubya takes office, gas prices are more than double what they were when he took the oath of office...

And it's all a COINCIDENCE, honest, that gas prices dropped precipitously in the weeks and months leading up the 06 midterms, only to turn around and rise back to their old levels within weeks of those elections...

How many coincidences have to pile up on you before you start to suspect that maybe they're not coincidences at all??

[silverbear]

So would this be an appropriate place to post the face mosaic, or is that off-limits for no apparent reason. :rolleyes:

http://drinkingliberally.org/blogs/louisville/archives/girl%20at%20Arlington%20cemetary.jpg

That's one of the saddest pictures I've ever seen...

[Cajuncowboy]

I know you'd rather keep it a dark secret, how many Americans have died in this bogus war, but it is legitimate to keep a tally...



The difference being that World War II was a legitimate, even noble effort... Iraq is most assuredly not... so even if there were 10,000 deaths in World War II for every death in Iraq, the losses would still not be comparable...

Wait, in another thread you said we should have stopped when our death toll reached the number killed at Pearl Harbor. At least that was the end result of your reasoning.

Once again for the 10000000000000000000000th time this is a continuation of the same Gulf War that removes saddam from Kuwait. That's why the UN Resolutions were in place. That's why Bush went to the UN to begin with.

[Cajuncowboy]

Which any fool could have predicted, making the "Mission Accomplished" crapola a RIDICULOUS piece of proaganda... it was an attempt to con the American people into believing that the worst was over, and you know it, when it obviously was a LOOOOOONG way from over...

You know, hind sight is a beautiful thing but it is dangerous in the hands of novices.

I do not remember one person saying anything about the extremists before the war. Not even the wonderful left wing nut jobs. All they were talking about was Saddam didn't attack us!

[Cajuncowboy]

That's one of the saddest pictures I've ever seen...

And I am sure you will post it every time you get the chance and take advantage of that girls pain to make a political point.

[iceberg]

The difference being that World War II was a legitimate, even noble effort... Iraq is most assuredly not... so even if there were 10,000 deaths in World War II for every death in Iraq, the losses would still not be comparable...

why? hitler wasn't attacking us was he? isn't that the battlecry of the saddam psudo defenders - he was no threat to us?

yet WWII where the germans were just after europe, we dove in for the nobelest of reasons to be sure. now, it's different because...

well it seems because some people want it to be.

[zrinkill]

That's one of the saddest pictures I've ever seen...

Yes ..... its sad that someone would use a grieving widow to further their political agenda.

But I have come to expect that.

[heavyg]

And I am sure you will post it every time you get the chance and take advantage of that girls pain to make a political point.

NAAAAWW He wouldn't do anything like that :(

[ConcordCowboy]

why? hitler wasn't attacking us was he? isn't that the battlecry of the saddam psudo defenders - he was no threat to us?

yet WWII where the germans were just after europe, we dove in for the nobelest of reasons to be sure. now, it's different because...

well it seems because some people want it to be.

Well he declared War on the U.S. to help the Japaneses against us...by giving them natural resources and sharing weapons secrets and the like.

He was attacking our allies and had plans to attack us...not only with U-Boats but he planned on bombing NY maybe Washington with Long Range bombers from Iceland if he could take it or whatever and maybe V2 Rockets if he could have established platforms closer to the U.S.

So yes he WAS a threat to the U.S. even IF we hadn't gone over to Europe.

Had the War went well and he had taken Europe and got all of it resources who knows what he could have done against the U.S. at the time.

Hitler made his major mistake by attacking the Russians...and of course declaring War on the U.S.

Sorry comparing Saddam to Hitler doesn't work.

[zrinkill]

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

Agree or Disagree?

[iceberg]

Well he declared War on the U.S. to help the Japaneses against us...by giving them natural resources and sharing weapons secrets and the like.

He was attacking our allies and had plans to attack us...not only with U-Boats but he planned on bombing NY maybe Washington with Long Range bombers from Iceland if he could take it or whatever and maybe V2 Rockets if he could have established platforms closer to the U.S.

So yes he WAS a threat to the U.S. even IF we hadn't gone over to Europe.

Had the War went well and he had taken Europe and got all of it resources who knows what he could have done against the U.S. at the time.

Hitler made his major mistake by attacking the Russians...and of course declaring War on the U.S.

Sorry comparing Saddam to Hitler doesn't work.

why not? we compare iraq to vietnam out of agenda-sake.

what if we stopped hitler when he first started vs. waiting for a declatration of war? i'm sorry but the mindset of "we the people" today seems much different than in WWII times. yes it was a different type of war but the type of person you're trying to get rid of?

a genocidial maniac. both killed those they feared or thought were against them or unclean.

now - did hitler declare war or is it we were noble then?

like i said - people make any situation fit their agenda. when you're known to hate bush and have never said anything positive about him then sure - there simply is no comparison. remove emotions and agendas there are in fact some simularities.

[ConcordCowboy]

why not? we compare iraq to vietnam out of agenda-sake.

what if we stopped hitler when he first started vs. waiting for a declatration of war? i'm sorry but the mindset of "we the people" today seems much different than in WWII times. yes it was a different type of war but the type of person you're trying to get rid of?

I had no problem going after Saddam when Iraq invaded Kuwait...and honestly I can't believe we waited for so long to help England...at least militarily and not just convoys.

Hitler invaded Poland...France...Russia...Belgium...Holland and more and was planning on invading England.

Iraq was invading no one at the time....that's one big difference to me.

a genocidial maniac. both killed those they feared or thought were against them or unclean.

I'm not saying Saddam wasn't bad but he was no where near on the scale of Hitler and he was killing his own people...bad yes...but not invading and killing other countries people.

now - did hitler declare war or is it we were noble then?

Hitler did declare War on us yes...not sure if that's what you saying or not.

like i said - people make any situation fit their agenda. when you're known to hate bush and have never said anything positive about him then sure - there simply is no comparison. remove emotions and agendas there are in fact some simularities.

Wasn't Invading other countries...didn't declare War on us...wasn't killing other countries people..wasn't attacking our allies...had no way to really attack us in the U.S. at all.

If there is a comparison it's tenuous at best.

[superpunk]

I've heard of governments being averse to provocative images or events being used to galvanize the masses.

http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/5/24/tiananmen-square-hero.jpg

Then there was this "massacre" in Boston.

[iceberg]

Wasn't Invading other countries...didn't declare War on us...wasn't killing other countries people..wasn't attacking our allies...had no way to really attack us in the U.S. at all.

If there is a comparison it's tenuous at best.

just because he was waiting for the spotlight to turn off doesn't mean he was suddenly going to behave as soon as things calmed down. what if we went after hitler before he invaded what, 5+ countries? is that where we draw the line?

like eddie izzard said - we're fine as long as you kill your own people, but start on someone else, oh dear...now you've done it.

we'll never know what would have happened if we just let saddam be saddam w/o check and stopping him. no threat to the US?

i view that entire region as a threat. iran is not declaring war on us but we're damn sure worried about them, right?

or should we not be because they pose no threat?

i really get confused as to when it's ok to take action against someone evil vs letting them play cause it's not directly hurting us.

[ConcordCowboy]

just because he was waiting for the spotlight to turn off doesn't mean he was suddenly going to behave as soon as things calmed down. what if we went after hitler before he invaded what, 5+ countries? is that where we draw the line?

like eddie izzard said - we're fine as long as you kill your own people, but start on someone else, oh dear...now you've done it.

we'll never know what would have happened if we just let saddam be saddam w/o check and stopping him. no threat to the US?

i view that entire region as a threat. iran is not declaring war on us but we're damn sure worried about them, right?

or should we not be because they pose no threat?

i really get confused as to when it's ok to take action against someone evil vs letting them play cause it's not directly hurting us.

So what now we're going to invade every country that we perceive as a threat?

Man we're going to need a draft for that.

To me there has to be a reason...not just a threat to invade a country.

And just because a country has or might have WMD's is not a reason to me...or we should be going after North Korea right now....or how about China or Russia...because all of them are a threat to us, and don't exactly treat their people well.

[iceberg]

So what now we're going to invade every country that we perceive as a threat?

Man we're going to need a draft for that.

To me there has to be a reason...not just a threat to invade a country.

And just because a country has or might have WMD's is not a reason to me...or we should be going after North Korea right now....or how about China or Russia...because all of them are a threat to us, and don't exactly treat their people well.

why else do we have iran surrounded?

if a dude in an alley came at you with a gun and said he was going to shoot you, do you wait till he does or act upon the threat?

[ConcordCowboy]

why else do we have iran surrounded?

if a dude in an alley came at you with a gun and said he was going to shoot you, do you wait till he does or act upon the threat?

That wasn't why we went there in the first place was it? I thought it was WMD's. :p:

Has Iran told the U.S. that they have a Nuclear Weapon pointed at us and is going to shoot it at us...period?

If they have then Invade! :p:

[Sasquatch]

So what now we're going to invade every country that we perceive as a threat?

Man we're going to need a draft for that.

To me there has to be a reason...not just a threat to invade a country.

And just because a country has or might have WMD's is not a reason to me...or we should be going after North Korea right now....or how about China or Russia...because all of them are a threat to us, and don't exactly treat their people well.

http://images.allposters.com/images/140/039_minority_report.jpg

It's the Minority Report approach to national defense.

So-in-so might do this with these possible horrible consequences. Better send in the troops and turn an entire nation upside down in order to prevent something that might even be worse than the destruction and "collateral damage" we know will occur as a result of our deliberate actions.

Sounds like flawless logic to me.

[Hostile]

I've heard of governments being averse to provocative images or events being used to galvanize the masses.

http://i.treehugger.com/images/2007/5/24/tiananmen-square-hero.jpg

Then there was this "massacre" in Boston.To this day, that remains the single bravest thing I have ever witnessed.

Thank you for sharing this. I mean that.

[superpunk]

To this day, that remains the single bravest thing I have ever witnessed.

Thank you for sharing this. I mean that.

Visual stimulus is a powerful thing.

Maybe if more people thought about how terribly, terribly sad war is, we'd have more outrage over it's pointlessness and less political party BS. Maybe we could focus more on the pain and suffering, and have less outrage that someone would dare pull at some heartstrings in speaking out against "my party".

The world needs less sheep.

[iceberg]

Visual stimulus is a powerful thing.

Maybe if more people thought about how terribly, terribly sad war is, we'd have more outrage over it's pointlessness and less political party BS. Maybe we could focus more on the pain and suffering, and have less outrage that someone would dare pull at some heartstrings in speaking out against "my party".

The world needs less sheep.

most people who are "sheep" are not sheep by choice, but at times you don't know what else to do. and when you do, you don't know how. so when all else fails you attack the ones who do and at least think they know how.

[zrinkill]

The world needs less sheep.

Yes ...... this goes for those that parrot the liberal media as well.

[superpunk]

It's always gotta be about party lines with the sheep. Always.

That's how they're kept in line.

[vta]

The world needs less sheep.

Well it would be very unpopulated world at that.
The problem isn't party lines, any more than it is religion or whatever; it's humanity. Safety in numbers and security and insecurity are human traits that can't be divorced from in large quantities.

Humanity is frail. :o:

[superpunk]

Well it would be very unpopulated world at that.
The problem isn't party lines, any more than it is religion or whatever; it's humanity. Safety in numbers and security and insecurity are human traits that can't be divorced from in large quantities.
I don't agree with that. If that were true, then a form of communism would be a success worldwide and we could have utopia. Something keeps dividing humans - actually, lots of things. Class, religion, politics, party lines - all those things hold people back from looking at things on a humanity-level instead of a personal interest level.

In this case, the personal interest is that nothing reflect badly upon their precious party. That prevents people from saying "You know what, hey....this is really horrible. This needs to stop." Instead it's "I can't believe you would use that picture to further your political agenda" - without even knowing what my "political agenda" is.

[zrinkill]

It's always gotta be about party lines with the sheep. Always.

That's how they're kept in line.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/zrinkill/moore.jpg

The real Sheep keep this guy employed.

[vta]

I don't agree with that. If that were true, then a form of communism would be a success worldwide and we could have utopia.

Something keeps dividing humans - actually, lots of things. Class, religion, politics, party lines - all those things hold people back from looking at things on a humanity-level instead of a personal interest level.

In this case, the personal interest is that nothing reflect badly upon their precious party. That prevents people from saying "You know what, hey....this is really horrible. This needs to stop." Instead it's "I can't believe you would use that picture to further your political agenda" - without even knowing what my "political agenda" is.

Communism?
My point is that the thing that divides humans is insecurity itself. We designate hierarchies based on colors, religions, self-created riches, etc. Why? Because that which is different is scary. After a while it morphs into a feeling of superiority, but my feeling is that at it's core is insecurity.

We can't be cohesive and look at things on a humanity level, because we don't trust each other.

[superpunk]

Communism?

Any system that focuses on the good of the community over the good of the individual. Not precisely communism, just something like it.

My point is that the thing that divides humans is insecurity itself. We designate hierarchies based on colors, religions, self-created riches, etc. Why? Because that which is different is scary. After a while it morphs into a feeling of superiority, but my feeling is that at it's core is insecurity.

We can't be cohesive and look at things on a humanity level, because we don't trust each other.

Yes. That makes more sense. It's the same problem I'm talking about, just taken one step further. Party lines are a problem with the country. Insecurity is a problem with humanity.

I've also never seen anything by Michael Moore. But thanks for hammering home my point by being an example of the problem, zrinkill.

[SultanOfSix]

Communism?
My point is that the thing that divides humans is insecurity itself. We designate hierarchies based on colors, religions, self-created riches, etc. Why? Because that which is different is scary. After a while it morphs into a feeling of superiority, but my feeling is that at it's core is insecurity.

We can't be cohesive and look at things on a humanity level, because we don't trust each other.

This is laughable coming from a guy who stereotypes a religion and then says he doesn't.

We divide ourselves because human beings forget their purpose and where they're going.

[Sasquatch]

Any system that focuses on the good of the community over the good of the individual. Not precisely communism, just something like it..

Like monasteries and convents, for example, upon which communism is based but on a broader scale and secularized. :D

[superpunk]

Like monasteries and convents, for example, upon which communism is based but on a broader scale and secularized. :D

http://www.gayattitude.com/photo/n/i/nico_paris12/20071018-221861739471704479d997.jpg



DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week,...

ARTHUR: Yes.

DENNIS: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting...

ARTHUR: Yes, I see.

DENNIS: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,...

ARTHUR: Be quiet!

DENNIS: ...but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--

ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

[ScipioCowboy]

Maybe if more people thought about how terribly, terribly sad war is, we'd have more outrage over it's pointlessness and less political party BS. Maybe we could focus more on the pain and suffering, and have less outrage that someone would dare pull at some heartstrings in speaking out against "my party".

If we really want to change attitudes, we must reevaluate our entire philosophy regarding foreign policy. Currently, the US believes that it must police the world, bringing law, order, democracy, and security to every corner of the planet. This philosophy is as wrong and misguided in Iraq as it was in Bosnia and Somolia.

Your point about "my party" is a good one because the two-party system breeds intellectual dishonesty. The same people who castigate Bush for our involvement in Iraq are almost universally the same people who defended Clinton's forays into Eastern Europe, and vice versa.

If we want to stop needless conflicts, we must stop them on both sides of the political fence.

[ScipioCowboy]

Any system that focuses on the good of the community over the good of the individual. Not precisely communism, just something like it.

Ideally, we should be creating a balance between the two: good for the community and good for the individual.

[Sasquatch]

If we really want to change attitudes, we must reevaluate our entire philosophy regarding foreign policy. Currently, the US believes that it must police the world, bringing law, order, democracy, and security to every corner of the planet. This philosophy is as wrong and misguided in Iraq as it was in Bosnia and Somolia.

Your point about "my party" is a good one because the two-party system breeds intellectual dishonesty. The same people who castigate Bush for our involvement in Iraq are almost universally the same people who defended Clinton's forays into Eastern Europe, and vice versa.

If we want to stop needless conflicts, we must stop them on both sides of the political fence.

Unipolar world = instability?

[zrinkill]

I've also never seen anything by Michael Moore. But thanks for hammering home my point by being an example of the problem, zrinkill.

Talk about being a prime example of the problem buddy ..... you eat up all the negative stuff and tried to ridicule people in this thread for not buying it.

Talk to the Soldiers or Marines ..... do not just listen to the "political agendas" that you claim to have such disdain for ..... because you have become one.

[superpunk]

Talk about being a prime example of the problem buddy ..... you eat up all the negative stuff and tried to ridicule people in this thread for not buying it.

Talk to the Soldiers or Marines ..... do not just listen to the "political agendas" that you claim to have such disdain for ..... because you have become one.

Since when is disdain for war, especially a pointless war with horrible leadership and needless loss of life, a political agenda?

You're hopeless, party-man. You don't even know what the point is.

[ScipioCowboy]

It's always gotta be about party lines with the sheep. Always.

That's how they're kept in line.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/zrinkill/moore.jpg

The real Sheep keep this guy employed.

Excellent point, Zrinkill.

Speaking of intellectual honesty....egadz!

The tragedy of Michael Moore is that he really is a brilliant filmmaker and his films do contain a few good points: the tragedy of outsourcing, living in a culture of fear, etc.

But his films are the worst kind of propaganda; they're so full of mistruths, half-truths, intellectual dishonesty, misleading statements, and needless demonizations of people simply on the grounds that he doesn't like them.

Moore is like the Darth Vader of documentarians--much natural ability and an inherent mastery of his profression, but he uses it for evil.;)

[vta]

This is laughable coming from a guy who stereotypes a religion and then says he doesn't.

We divide ourselves because human beings forget their purpose and where they're going.

You probably wouldn't laugh if you recognized that the problem is your reading skills and not my beliefs.

But hey have a blast.
Oops. Was that a stereotype of a Muslim?

[zrinkill]

Since when is disdain for war, especially a pointless war with horrible leadership and needless loss of life, a political agenda?

You're hopeless, party-man. You don't even know what the point is.

Party-Man? :lmao: Thats a new one.

I have been called a Neo-Nazi, a Military Robot, a Sheep, Pro-Drugs, a Baby killer and a Liberal on this board. My beliefs have never changed on these subjects.

I think the War was fought wrong ..... but I think the War was the right thing to do.

Saddam was a dangerous and very rich and powerful maniac who hates the U.S. He violated every treaty that he signed under the terms of his surrender and was long past due in being handled.

The current administration should have had more patience in the way we took him out, but it was a necessity that anyone who is not playing politics realizes.

So keep coming with the names Punk ...... You will not embarrass me into agreeing with foolish ideas and silly anti war rhetoric with no basis in facts.

[Sasquatch]

The current administration should have had more patience in the way we took him out, but it was a necessity that anyone who is not playing politics realizes.

Not in any conventional sense of the word necessity. We know he didn't have weapons, therefore, it wasn't necessary to attack him to prevent him from placing them in dangerous hands.

[SultanOfSix]

You probably wouldn't laugh if you recognized that the problem is your reading skills and not my beliefs.

But hey have a blast.
Oops. Was that a stereotype of a Muslim?

"Weak sauce".

I can read just fine and recognize that you stereotype.

[zrinkill]

Not in any conventional sense of the word necessity. We know he didn't have weapons, therefore, it wasn't necessary to attack him to prevent him from placing them in dangerous hands.

You butchered that quote function buddy.

Anyway ..... We do not know anything .... the man was a billionaire who had ties with terrorists.

I know for a fact that he was a madman who enjoyed torturing people ..... I saw it.

The guy was a danger to every country in the world ..... Even the Democratic leaders will admit that when they are not playing politics.



"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."
Senator Hillary Clinton

Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability.
Senator John Edwards

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
Senator Hillary Clinton

"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.

If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton

"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."
President Clinton

[Dallas]

Not in any conventional sense of the word necessity. We know he didn't have weapons, therefore, it wasn't necessary to attack him to prevent him from placing them in dangerous hands.


I like my reasoning of going to war w/ Iraq. See below..

Oust dictator who led by fear and fear alone - CHECK

Oust dictators commanders and politicians who supported his terroristic regime - CHECK

Oust generals and secret police and military that enforced the terroristic regimes policies and dirty work - CHECK

Give a voice back to the people of Iraq - CHECK

Stop the mass tortures and killings of thousands and thousands of Iraqi people by said terroristic regime - CHECK

Let the Iraqi Soccer team compete w/o the fear of being killed if the lost a match - CHECK

Slaughterd some crazy *** sons who were crazier than said dictator and would have only increased the terror inside Iraq once they gained power from Pops. - CHECK-A-MUNDO

So I dunno...Some good has come from ousting that regime.

The things some of you over look and take for granted for agendas sake....so sad

[vta]

"Weak sauce".

I can read just fine and recognize that you stereotype.

Awww... are you still steaming over your last failed attempt to deal with the facts that didn't go your way?

Hey Junior, this thread isn't about us, but if you have something you want to refute with some substance and facts, by all means, feel free. Bring them up and discuss them. Like a big boy.

[Sasquatch]

You butchered that quote function buddy.

http://www.vinmag.com/online/media/gbu0/prodlg/TS065.jpg

[Dallas]

Awww... are you still steaming over your last failed attempt to deal with the facts that didn't go your way?

Hey Junior, this thread isn't about us, but if you have something you want to refute with some substance and facts, by all means, feel free. Bring them up and discuss them.

It is better to post the occasional drive-by Weak-sauce comment and not return for a while than to debate you vta. :D

[SultanOfSix]

Awww... are you still steaming over your last failed attempt to deal with the facts that didn't go your way?

Hey Junior, this thread isn't about us, but if you have something you want to refute with some substance and facts, by all means, feel free. Bring them up and discuss them. Like a big boy.

You didn't present any facts. You listed 10 organizations, said they associated themselves with Islam, and then raised your hands up and said "it's not my responsiblity" to figure out if what they are saying is the truth, as if those 10 organizations included membership of even a modicum of the minority of the Muslim population. Thus, you stereotyped by definition.

Then you went on to divert the issue, as if it was my responsibility to answer your questions.

[Sasquatch]

Even the Democratic leaders will admit that when they are not playing politics.

They were playing politics. They didn't want to appear "weak" and "unpatriotic," which is precisely why neither of those clowns deserve to be the C in C.

A full 1/3 of congress voted against the measure authorizing military force against Iraq, so the argument that "everyone else thought so too" doesn't really hold water.

Besides, whether or not people believed that Iraq had WMDs is irrelevant to your contention that it was necessary in your present opinion, even though you now know that the stated threat was untrue.

[zrinkill]

http://www.vinmag.com/online/media/gbu0/prodlg/TS065.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/zrinkill/490681227_e7356b5b41_o.jpg

Watch out for the bicycle man.

[zrinkill]

Besides, whether or not people believed that Iraq had WMDs is irrelevant to your contention that it was necessary in your present opinion, even though you now know that the stated threat was untrue.

Whether the WMD's were there or not is what is irrelevant ..... in most of those quotes they stressed that he was working to get said weapons .... and he would use them when he got them.

The guy had a History of attacking anyone he could get too ..... and he bluffed us one to many times.

Sorry if that does not fit in with your view of things ..... we have had this argument a hundred times and I have already given up that you will actually listen.

[vta]

You didn't present any facts. You listed 10 organizations, said they associated themselves with Islam, and then raised your hands up and said "it's not my responsiblity" to figure out if what they are saying is the truth, as if those 10 organizations included membership of even a modicum of the minority of the Muslim population. Thus, you stereotyped by definition.

Ahhh, to the point finally.
Ummm, no I didn't. I stated that while I don't think there is a problem with the religion in of itself, I can understand why some would think so, (after which I posted the above mentioned list of terrorist org's), with the reason being the number of terrorist organizations that label themselves in such a manner.

Now, is it the responsibility of someone who misunderstands a thing to look deeper? No, not really. Would it help; is it wise? It sure would and is. But don't expect people to stretch themslves, when they're getting no better from the people who are mad at the characterization (like you), and try to make moral equivalencies between murdering and rioting over cartoons and people denying the holocaust.


Then you went on to divert the issue, as if it was my responsibility to answer your questions.


Nope. I kept a straight line through and through.
And when you make assertions in adult discussion, you are responsible for following them up and answering the questions that follow. Do you have to? No. But then don't get your panties in a bunch when you're not taken seriously.

[Sasquatch]

Whether the WMD's were there or not is what is irrelevant ..... in most of those quotes they stressed that he was working to get said weapons .... and he would use them when he got them.

The guy had a History of attacking anyone he could get too ..... and he bluffed us one to many times.

Sorry if that does not fit in with your view of things ..... we have had this argument a hundred times and I have already given up that you will actually listen.

So, essentially, you're saying that Saddam "wanting" WMD justifies spending a few hundred billion dollars, throwing an entire nation into anarchy, and destroying the lives of a few million people? How does him wanting WMD put us in immediate jeopardy, especially while watching him like a hawk and patrolling the perimeters of his country?

That's a pitifully low threshold for what should be a final recourse. I realize that you don't take war lightly but this seems a rather casual argument for when war is necessary.

[zrinkill]

So, essentially, you're saying that Saddam "wanting" WMD justifies spending a few hundred billion dollars, throwing an entire nation into anarchy, and destroying the lives of a few million people? How does him wanting WMD put us in immediate jeopardy, especially while watching him like a hawk and patrolling the perimeters of his country?

That's a pitifully low threshold for what should be a final recourse. I realize that you don't take war lightly but this seems a rather casual argument for when war is necessary.

Thats not what I said at all. But keep spinning buddy.

[Dallas]

Thats not what I said at all. But keep spinning buddy.


I think your gettin it. :D

[SultanOfSix]

LOL. This is funny.

I made a mistake when I assumed that McVeigh labelled himself as a Christian terrorist.

Then I quoted a correction after you pointed it out, along with information concerning stereotyping from a neutral source. You then proceeded to ignore what was said, and stereotype the religion after pointing out 10 militant organizations with minimal Muslim membership that associated themselves with the religion while making a disclaimer that while you thought not "all of Islam" was the problem and then claimed disassociation from responsibility.

If that's not stereotyping...

[zrinkill]

I think your gettin it. :D

:lmao: Thats not actually how I meant it.

Me and Sassy have had this argument a hundred times .....

He will never be supportive of any reason to go to war.

Does not matter if Saddam was the worlds richest and most powerful terrorist
Does not matter that everyone knows he was never gonna stop developing weapons to use on us or our allies.
Does not matter that he bribed the U.N. and then threw them out of the country in clear violations of his surrender treaty.
Does not matter that he had many ties to terrorist organizations that were a threat the every country in the world.
And it really does not matter to him that the War we started in 2003 is not the same one we are fighting now.

Sassy is just ..... well ...... Sassy.

[hank2k]

So, essentially, you're saying that Saddam "wanting" WMD justifies spending a few hundred billion dollars, throwing an entire nation into anarchy, and destroying the lives of a few million people? How does him wanting WMD put us in immediate jeopardy, especially while watching him like a hawk and patrolling the perimeters of his country?

That's a pitifully low threshold for what should be a final recourse. I realize that you don't take war lightly but this seems a rather casual argument for when war is necessary.


Too many people think the world is like "24" where bad guys can just order up a nuke like ordering a pizza. This country has limited resources and to invade every country that wants to do us harm just because they hate us is pretty silly. The key word was "imminent" as in imminent threat. You dont go at it alone (essentially) unless there is an imminent threat. Of course there was rhetoric saying Saddam posed an imminent threat but none of it was backed up by any verified intelligence.
Iran wants a nuke.
Iran has a crazy leader.
Iran has sponsored terrorism.
Iran may be funnelling weapons to Iraq.
Irans leaders have murdered its own people.
Iran has wmds (every country on earth has a few).
Iran took our citizens hostage(well a while back, but Saddam invaded Kuwait 12 years before we took him out, whats a decade or 2? ).

Can we really afford to take a chance that they wont get a nuke and use it against us?

[Sasquatch]

Thats not what I said at all. But keep spinning buddy.

Let me try again. :D

Saddam didn't have an active weapons program, he hadn't attacked anyone since invading Kuwait in 1990 (and before that only Iran with our blessing), and wasn't bluffing as it turns out he didn't have WMD.

So why was the invasion a necessity, which implies we had no other choice but to go to war with Iraq?

[Sasquatch]

Too many people think the world is like "24" where bad guys can just order up a nuke like ordering a pizza. This country has limited resources and to invade every country that wants to do us harm just because they hate us is pretty silly. The key word was "imminent" as in imminent threat. You dont go at it alone (essentially) unless there is an imminent threat. Of course there was rhetoric saying Saddam posed an imminent threat but none of it was backed up by any verified intelligence.
Iran wants a nuke.
Iran has a crazy leader.
Iran has sponsored terrorism.
Iran may be funnelling weapons to Iraq.
Irans leaders have murdered its own people.
Iran has wmds (every country on earth has a few).
Iran took our citizens hostage(well a while back, but Saddam invaded Kuwait 12 years before we took him out, whats a decade or 2? ).

Can we really afford to take a chance that they wont get a nuke and use it against us?

It's like arguing that we need to invade Rwanda to stop the genocide. It happened once before after all and could very well happen again.

[Hostile]

Too many people think the world is like "24" where bad guys can just order up a nuke like ordering a pizza. This country has limited resources and to invade every country that wants to do us harm just because they hate us is pretty silly. The key word was "imminent" as in imminent threat. You dont go at it alone (essentially) unless there is an imminent threat. Of course there was rhetoric saying Saddam posed an imminent threat but none of it was backed up by any verified intelligence.
Iran wants a nuke.
Iran has a crazy leader.
Iran has sponsored terrorism.
Iran may be funnelling weapons to Iraq.
Irans leaders have murdered its own people.
Iran has wmds (every country on earth has a few).
Iran took our citizens hostage(well a while back, but Saddam invaded Kuwait 12 years before we took him out, whats a decade or 2? ).

Can we really afford to take a chance that they wont get a nuke and use it against us?If this President gives the order to invade Iran people will go nuts.


Just saying.

[vta]

LOL. This is funny.

I made a mistake when I assumed that McVeigh labelled himself as a Christian terrorist.

Then I quoted a correction after you pointed it out, along with information concerning stereotyping from a neutral source. You then proceeded to ignore what was said, and stereotype the religion after pointing out 10 militant organizations with minimal Muslim membership that associated themselves with the religion while making a disclaimer that while you thought not "all of Islam" was the problem and then claimed disassociation from responsibility.

If that's not stereotyping...

I don't care how you (wrongly) define define it, I gave you my opinion and you came away with nothing better than psuedo-insults.

Why bother telling me point by point? I was there, I remember clearly how it went.

The outward characterization of Islam falls upon Islam to be defined, not total strangers. You're wasting your time trying to convince those strangers not trust what they see, hear, read and experience in favor what you want them to believe.

If you have emprical evidence, what exactly is holding you back?
It's real simple, answer those very simple questions I'd previously asked. I've already stated I can, why can't you, a Muslim, do the same?

But I get it, your constant dissembling and inability to meet point with point proves what I said earlier: you're just angry.

[Dallas]

I don't care how you (wrongly) define define it, I gave you my opinion and you came away with nothing better than psuedo-insults.

Why bother telling me point by point? I was there, I remember clearly how it went.

The outward characterization of Islam falls upon Islam to be defined, not total strangers. You're wasting your time trying to convince those strangers not trust what they see, hear, read and experience in favor what you want them to believe.

If you have emprical evidence, what exactly is holding you back?
It's real simple, answer those very simple questions I'd previously asked. I've already stated I can, why can't you, a Muslim, do the same?

But I get it, your constant dissembling and inability to meet point with point proves what I said earlier: you're just angry.

Spot on VTA.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/23/bc.boxoffice.ap/art.horton.jpg

[vta]

Spot on VTA.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/23/bc.boxoffice.ap/art.horton.jpg

:lmao:

[SultanOfSix]

I don't care how you (wrongly) define define it, I gave you my opinion and you came away with nothing better than psuedo-insults.

Why bother telling me point by point? I was there, I remember clearly how it went.

Because you don't, and your own words deceive you.

The outward characterization of Islam falls upon Islam to be defined, not total strangers. You're wasting your time trying to convince those strangers not trust what they see, hear, read and experience in favor what you want them to believe.

If what they see, hear, and read is from the likes of Fox news, then yes I am wasting my time. If multiple media sources that I have read repeatedly define "jihad" to be "holy war", and people get their information from such sources, then yes I am wasting my time.

Are you playing dumb? Is the internet filtered for you such that you can't search for Islamic bookstores online? Have you not heard of the Qur'an, the ultimate source of Islam, and the multitude of different Tafsirs, or commentaries, done by various different authors? Are there not an Islamic bookstores in NY that are not within minimal driving distance from your home?

Or do you believe everything you see on television, in magazines, the movies, or just those that fit your preconceived notions, or that are inline with your agenda. Apparently you do. You named 10 militant organizations, with minimal Muslim membership compared to the majority population, said they associated themselves with Islam, and so it must be so.

I can't speak about religion on this forum, but it's apparently acceptable that people can denigrate it until the thread eventually gets closed.

If you have emprical evidence, what exactly is holding you back?
It's real simple, answer those very simple questions I'd previously asked. I've already stated I can, why can't you, a Muslim, do the same?

I am not at your beck and call to answer questions you pose to divert the issue after you made a claim (one about responsibility), didn't prove it at all, assumed it to be true, and then bound me to it without my consent.

There are plenty of Muslim scholars ranging from Hamza Yusuf to Muhammad Asad to Fazlur Rahman who have written works or given speeches that are available for anyone to obtain explanations concerning the sources of the religion, all based on majority opinions.

But I get it, your constant dissembling and inability to meet point with point proves what I said earlier: you're just angry.

You mean like the fact that you interjected yourself into a thread pointing out my use of a sterotype concerning the "Cowboy mentality" right, as if all stereotypes are negative and equal, because you were angry.

Don't play dumb.

[silverbear]

Wait, in another thread you said we should have stopped when our death toll reached the number killed at Pearl Harbor.

Y'know, it's one thing to be insulted by somebody I call a friend, I can chalk that up to a bad day, or a bad week... but son, if you now have to resort to flat-out lying about what I'm saying, then you can pretty much consider our friendship history...

I'm truly disappointed in you, Cajun, it seems that your friendship only lasts so long as it's easy for you, so long as you don't have to work at it... but even with all the tens of thousands of posts I've made to message boards over the years, I'm completely certain that I've never said anything even REMOTELY resembling what you claim I did... I have NEVER equated the death toll in Iraq to ANY other war, except to point out that inasmuch as THIS war is totally illegitimate, one death in pursuit of this bogus war is worse than 10,000 deaths in pursuit of a legitimate, noble war like World War II...

So I kindly invite you to take your ignorant lies, and shove them where the sun don't shine... I sure hope you have enough friends in your life, because you just lost one, all because you let your political extremism override your alleged friendship...

If agreeing with you right down the line on absolutely EVERYTHING is a condition of your friendship, I'm not interested... it certainly has never been a condition of frienship for me...

So have a nice life, zealot...

[silverbear]

You know, hind sight is a beautiful thing but it is dangerous in the hands of novices.

I do not remember one person saying anything about the extremists before the war. Not even the wonderful left wing nut jobs. All they were talking about was Saddam didn't attack us!


Perhaps that's because at that point, none of us knew the TRUTH, which your precious Dubya was so careful to keep from us...

Yes, hindsight is indeed a beautiful thing, when it lets you see that you've been lied to and manipulated...

[silverbear]

why? hitler wasn't attacking us was he? isn't that the battlecry of the saddam psudo defenders - he was no threat to us?

Man, you're not that obtuse...

We got into WWII because Hitler was busily going around conquering all of Europe... he was aggressively invading neighboring countries, and "annexing" them, one after another...

And we got into WWII because Britain ASKED us to... which makes WWII more analagous to our operations in Desert Storm, where we came to the defense of Kuwait, than to the Iraq invasion, where we initiated hostilities without provocation...

yet WWII where the germans were just after europe, we dove in for the nobelest of reasons to be sure. now, it's different because...

well it seems because some people want it to be.

No, because it IS different... we were ASKED to help Britain; we CHOSE to invade Iraq... Hitler was invading other countries, Saddam was not when we invaded him...

These are fundamental differences between the two situations, that render one legitimate and the other not...

[silverbear]

Yes ..... its sad that someone would use a grieving widow to further their political agenda.

But I have come to expect that.

What political agenda do I advance by saying that picture is sad??

For all I know, that poor girl is an ardent supporter of the war, even after losing her loved one...

ALL I said is that picture is really sad... I saw it, and it hurt my heart... no political agenda, simply a comment about how it made me sad...

Seems that you're the one incapable of making a post without any political agenda... you and at least one other poster in here who tried to make something political out of an entirely apolitical comment...

All I said was that picture made me sad... it's a measure of how fanatical some in here are that an attempt is being made to make something more out of those words than what I said...

[silverbear]

just because he was waiting for the spotlight to turn off doesn't mean he was suddenly going to behave as soon as things calmed down. what if we went after hitler before he invaded what, 5+ countries? is that where we draw the line?

You ignore some truths that we've learned since the invasion... you know, like how Saddam was telling those lies to keep his enemies, his neighbors, at bay...

Which tells us that Saddam was far too concerned with protecting his own borders to contemplate invading anybody else... he had been defanged by Desert Storm, and was relying on lying about having WMDs to keep Iran from comin' in and takin' him down...

He wasn't "waiting for any spotlight to turn off", he was too busy covering his own butt...

we'll never know what would have happened if we just let saddam be saddam w/o check and stopping him. no threat to the US?

None whatsoever, as it turned out...

i really get confused as to when it's ok to take action against someone evil vs letting them play cause it's not directly hurting us.

Well, lemme see if I can help you-- we need to stop thinking we're the world's policeman, that we can just go anywhere we want and "set things right", according to OUR definition of "right"...

Most important, we should NEVER engage in "preemptive" war, unless we're dead morally certain that the target of such preemption actually poses us a threat... the target in this situation did not...

[silverbear]

So what now we're going to invade every country that we perceive as a threat?

Apparently...

And just because a country has or might have WMD's is not a reason to me...or we should be going after North Korea right now....or how about China or Russia...because all of them are a threat to us, and don't exactly treat their people well.


Naw, won't work; they don't have enough oil...

[silverbear]

why else do we have iran surrounded?

if a dude in an alley came at you with a gun and said he was going to shoot you, do you wait till he does or act upon the threat?

Bad analogy, because Saddam did not have a "gun"... he was toothless, and quite impotent...

[silverbear]

It's always gotta be about party lines with the sheep. Always.

That's how they're kept in line.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/zrinkill/moore.jpg

The real Sheep keep this guy employed.

We're the "sheep", yet you guys are the ones all talking the exact same rhetoric...

You've got your party line talking points down pat, don't you?? What a shining example of independent thought you provide when you parrot right wing propaganda... LOL...

[silverbear]

Whether the WMD's were there or not is what is irrelevant ...

Oh no, it's not... it is the central, key question to the legitimacy of the invasion of Iraq... no WMDs means the invasion of Iraq was illegitmate... it means that Iraq posed us no threat that would justify a preemptive strike...

in most of those quotes they stressed that he was working to get said weapons .... and he would use them when he got them.

Bullhockey... "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"... THAT'S what we were told BEFORE the invasion, and of course that's a clear insinuation that Iraq had nuclear weapons NOW, that they posed us a threat NOW...

Sorry if that does not fit in with your view of things ..... we have had this argument a hundred times and I have already given up that you will actually listen.

Your problem is that the facts don't support your theory...

[silverbear]

:lmao: Thats not actually how I meant it.

Me and Sassy have had this argument a hundred times .....

He will never be supportive of any reason to go to war.

I have yet to hear a LEGITIMATE reason to go to war... I suspect that's the point Sas is making with you, but you seem incapable of grasping it...

Let's review the reasons we were given for invading Iraq:

1) Saddam has WMDs, and he could use them against us...

He had no such WMDs... there goes that justification...

2) Saddam was a coconspirator in 9/11...

Saddam and bin Laden were ENEMIES, they had no conspiratorial links... this according to the bipartisan 9/11 commission... there goes that justification...

3) We were enforcing UN sanctions...

The UN itself did not support our invasion... we had no rights under the UN charter to unilaterally enforce UN sanctions that they did not choose to have enforced themselves... and there goes that justification, too...

4) Saddam was a brutal tyrant who murdered his own people wholesale...

While this is true, nobody in Iraq ASKED us to remove the man for them... and we have no moral right to "liberate" any people who have not asked to be liberated by us...

I believe those were ALL the reasons we were given for invading Iraq... right from the start, the ONLY one I believed, because I naively thought that our leaders wouldn't DARE lie to us about something so serious, was the claim about WMDs... so I supported the invasion, because I found it easy to believe that he'd try to use WMDs against us if he had them...

When it turned out that he had no WMDs, and when it became pretty clear that our leaders were not just misinformed, but rather willfully deceived us, is when I became opposed to the invasion of Iraq... that happened because I suddenly saw no legitimate reason for our having invaded a sovereign nation, which pissed me off (to me, that made us the moral equivalent of the Russians subjugating Eastern Europe after World War II), and because I was outraged at the realization that our leaders had lied to us to con us into going along with their agenda...

Does not matter if Saddam was the worlds richest and most powerful terrorist

He was never anywhere CLOSE to the world's "most powerful terrorist"... he was at best a bit player in Islamofascist terror...

And it really does not matter to him that the War we started in 2003 is not the same one we are fighting now.

Of course it is... what's happening now was actually predictable, if you knew the region...

[silverbear]

Too many people think the world is like "24" where bad guys can just order up a nuke like ordering a pizza. This country has limited resources and to invade every country that wants to do us harm just because they hate us is pretty silly. The key word was "imminent" as in imminent threat. You dont go at it alone (essentially) unless there is an imminent threat. Of course there was rhetoric saying Saddam posed an imminent threat but none of it was backed up by any verified intelligence.
Iran wants a nuke.
Iran has a crazy leader.
Iran has sponsored terrorism.
Iran may be funnelling weapons to Iraq.
Irans leaders have murdered its own people.
Iran has wmds (every country on earth has a few).
Iran took our citizens hostage(well a while back, but Saddam invaded Kuwait 12 years before we took him out, whats a decade or 2? ).

Can we really afford to take a chance that they wont get a nuke and use it against us?

So what do you suggest, that we invade and conquer every country that has nuclear capability, and is hostile toward us??

[SuspectCorner]

Because war destabilizes the output of oil... that in turn raises the price of oil, meaning that the oil bidness can make more of a profit on each gallon they refine...



If you think the oil companies WANT to build more refineries, you're deluding yourself... they like the price of gasoline right where it is, or higher if at all possible... that can't happen if you increase supply by increasing refining capacity...

Bingo!

It's amazing to me that adults who remember the aftermath of Katrina, and the ensuing shortage of refined petroleum product due to the loss of gulf states refinery production - and the soaring gas prices resultant, would somehow think that what was obvious to "Joe Sixpack" was somehow lost on the huge multi-national oil corporations.



Business 101 - price is directly affected by supply versus demand. "Big oil" DOESN'T WANT more refineries. Not in the US. They wan't them abroad - where booming markets like India and China are under-served.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/16/news/economy/gas_prices/index.htm

This kinda blew me away (look at the bottom of page 1 of the search results - hilarious):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=oil+industry+%2B+overseas+refinement&btnG=Search

[Bach]

The U.S. has a gasoline refining shortage largely due to the liberal Democrats pandering to environmentalists by legislating numerous regulations and delays, which have had the effect of blocking construction of any new refineries on US soil for over 30 years.

Then these same people turn around and whine and point the finger at Bush and the Republicans and the oil companies, even though they are the ones who have virtually made us reliant on foreign oil.

[vta]

Because you don't, and your own words deceive you.



If what they see, hear, and read is from the likes of Fox news, then yes I am wasting my time. If multiple media sources that I have read repeatedly define "jihad" to be "holy war", and people get their information from such sources, then yes I am wasting my time.

Are you playing dumb? Is the internet filtered for you such that you can't search for Islamic bookstores online? Have you not heard of the Qur'an, the ultimate source of Islam, and the multitude of different Tafsirs, or commentaries, done by various different authors? Are there not an Islamic bookstores in NY that are not within minimal driving distance from your home?

Or do you believe everything you see on television, in magazines, the movies, or just those that fit your preconceived notions, or that are inline with your agenda. Apparently you do. You named 10 militant organizations, with minimal Muslim membership compared to the majority population, said they associated themselves with Islam, and so it must be so.

I can't speak about religion on this forum, but it's apparently acceptable that people can denigrate it until the thread eventually gets closed.



I am not at your beck and call to answer questions you pose to divert the issue after you made a claim (one about responsibility), didn't prove it at all, assumed it to be true, and then bound me to it without my consent.

There are plenty of Muslim scholars ranging from Hamza Yusuf to Muhammad Asad to Fazlur Rahman who have written works or given speeches that are available for anyone to obtain explanations concerning the sources of the religion, all based on majority opinions.



You mean like the fact that you interjected yourself into a thread pointing out my use of a sterotype concerning the "Cowboy mentality" right, as if all stereotypes are negative and equal, because you were angry.

Don't play dumb.

I don't need to play dumb, as I'm very confident in every word I type.
That's your tact, as evidence by the above referenced thread where you were forced to acknowledge what you were doing, by Iceberg, after which you childishly admitted you were stereotyping because others were.

Get it straight: I make points, you avoid them.

My knowledge of Islam isn't the question, yours is. You've asserted that you were doing your part to counter the stereotype, and staying within relevance I asked just what you were doing. No diversion there.

I simply asked you to characterize Islam without the misguided moral equivalencies and inane comparisons to fools like McVeigh, basically handing you a line and it went completely over your head, until you finally posted 3 names this morning.

And there is no 'interjecting' in a public forum. If you don't want others to comment on what you write, feel free to not post here or do it via PM for exclusive discussion.

And yes, you're not at my beck and call to answer questions, but then don't follow me to other threads like a belligerent chihuahua nipping at my heels, because I am not at your beck and call to exlain myself and assuage your anger.

Get it?

[iceberg]

You ignore some truths that we've learned since the invasion... you know, like how Saddam was telling those lies to keep his enemies, his neighbors, at bay...

sb - and we also found out he had HOW many deal behind closed doors with the UN and France among others?

yes i'm pushing some of these analogies but in the end it doesn't matter. if you opposed the war, you still do. if you hate bush, you still do. if bush can do no right, he still can't.

how i feel really makes no difference.

[Cajuncowboy]

Y'know, it's one thing to be insulted by somebody I call a friend, I can chalk that up to a bad day, or a bad week... but son, if you now have to resort to flat-out lying about what I'm saying, then you can pretty much consider our friendship history...

I'm truly disappointed in you, Cajun, it seems that your friendship only lasts so long as it's easy for you, so long as you don't have to work at it... but even with all the tens of thousands of posts I've made to message boards over the years, I'm completely certain that I've never said anything even REMOTELY resembling what you claim I did... I have NEVER equated the death toll in Iraq to ANY other war, except to point out that inasmuch as THIS war is totally illegitimate, one death in pursuit of this bogus war is worse than 10,000 deaths in pursuit of a legitimate, noble war like World War II...

So I kindly invite you to take your ignorant lies, and shove them where the sun don't shine... I sure hope you have enough friends in your life, because you just lost one, all because you let your political extremism override your alleged friendship...

If agreeing with you right down the line on absolutely EVERYTHING is a condition of your friendship, I'm not interested... it certainly has never been a condition of frienship for me...

So have a nice life, zealot...

Geez louise!

I drew an inference from another post you made. You said that our war on terror cost more lives than what we lost on 9/11. And that you questioned the validity of the tactics. That suggestion led me to believe that you were ok with it as long as we came out with fewer deaths.

I responded in this thread because it didn't seem to jive with your post here.

As for the friendship thing, I have had knock down drag outs with other members here and have been able to separate their opinions on policy from their ability to be a friend.

The point is that no matter what you say (or post) it doesn't effect anything else like that. In the end we are all here for the same reason, that we are Cowboy fans and this is just a side bar to that.

Sorry if you took offense to my post.

[Cajuncowboy]

Perhaps that's because at that point, none of us knew the TRUTH, which your precious Dubya was so careful to keep from us...

Yes, hindsight is indeed a beautiful thing, when it lets you see that you've been lied to and manipulated...

I see, ONLY BUSH knew the "truth". There is no way he could have been mislead by the information that every major intel organization in the World had.

Bad Bush, good left wingers. :bang2:

[iceberg]

Perhaps that's because at that point, none of us knew the TRUTH, which your precious Dubya was so careful to keep from us...

Yes, hindsight is indeed a beautiful thing, when it lets you see that you've been lied to and manipulated...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts

tunnel vision is beautiful if you don't wanna see reality. this is clinton saying he has them and is developing them and he guarantees some day he'll use 'em.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNgaVtVaiJE&feature=related

sb - how come all this was also said before bush ever took office yet bush lied? or did he have them when clinton was in office but got rid of 'em when bush came along? even if so then yes, we have reasonable doubt and should ensure our own safety.

how come only bush lied, sb? that just seems to be convenient to your views but not with reality.

[SultanOfSix]

I don't need to play dumb, as I'm very confident in every word I type.

The second part of the phrase doesn't necessarily follow from the first.

That's your tact, as evidence by the above referenced thread where you were forced to acknowledge what you were doing, by Iceberg, after which you childishly admitted you were stereotyping because others were.

Actually I didn't deny that I was. I merely asked the question on how I was, and yet you didn't answer my question. Instead you responded with "don't play dumb". OH THE IRONY! Anyone can go back and look at what I wrote. The fact of the matter is there are different types of stereotypes, and they can be both positive and negative. The equivalency that you were trying to generate to imply hypocrisy with your semantic BS concerning religion and a "mentality" was ridiculously laughable.

Get it straight: I make points, you avoid them.

You've made no points.

My knowledge of Islam isn't the question, yours is.

The "question" is in your mind only.

You've asserted that you were doing your part to counter the stereotype, and staying within relevance I asked just what you were doing. No diversion there.

I've asserted no such thing.

I simply asked you to characterize Islam without the misguided moral equivalencies and inane comparisons to fools like McVeigh,

You asked me to do something that isn't allowed on this forum. Get it?

basically handing you a line and it went completely over your head, until you finally posted 3 names this morning.

Perhaps it didn't go over my head. Perhaps in my head I decided to ignore it.

And there is no 'interjecting' in a public forum. If you don't want others to comment on what you write, feel free to not post here or do it via PM for exclusive discussion.

Since when did what I say become an issue about "interjection"? I simply did the same thing you did in a different thread on a "public" forum. I pointed out how what you said in a post was laughable since in another you stereotyped an entire group of believers and its religion based off of a silly listing of 10 militant Islamic organizations.

And yes, you're not at my beck and call to answer questions, but then don't follow me to other threads like a belligerent chihuahua nipping at my heels, because I am not at your beck and call to exlain myself and assuage your anger.

Get it?

LOL. I merely did what you did, and now I'm the belligerent chihuahua.

Physician, heal thyself!

[vta]

I've asserted no such thing.

Are you sure of that...?
Sure, it's up to the said people or groups to speak up about it (like I have attempted to do what I can) (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2006145&postcount=45)

Blatantly lying now?

You asked me to do something that isn't allowed on this forum. Get it?

You had no trouble finding moral equivalence in doing so, why when asked to do it genuinely do you care about forum rules? The proof says, because you're unable to do that.

Perhaps it didn't go over my head. Perhaps in my head I decided to ignore it.

Yes, I've noticed you have a tendency to ignore rational discussion...

Since when did what I say become an issue about "interjection"?

You really are having a hard time with this reading comprehension aren't you?

Try this to refresh your memory...
You mean like the fact that you interjected yourself into a thread pointing out my use of a sterotype concerning the "Cowboy mentality" right, as if all stereotypes are negative and equal, because you were angry. (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2013583&postcount=149)

Those are your words I was answering to...

That's a history of playing dumb, a blatant lie, and a lack of reading comprehension; sorry, you're not good enough to play word games with me.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a249/Junebugbaby87/Icons/YouLoseGoodDaySir.gif

:lmao2:

[zrinkill]

sorry, you're not good enough to play word games with me.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a249/Junebugbaby87/Icons/YouLoseGoodDaySir.gif



I love that Giff.

[SultanOfSix]

Are you sure of that...?
Sure, it's up to the said people or groups to speak up about it (like I have attempted to do what I can) (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2006145&postcount=45)

Blatantly lying now?



You mean, kind of like you lied about the fact that you didn't stereotype a group of religious believers and a religion from a silly listing of 10 militant "Islamic" organizations, right?

I haven't done what I can on this forum, but I have done it in general. It isn't allowable to speak about my religion on here. Countering stereotypes concerning a religion involve detailed discussion about the religion itself: its beliefs, practices, textual sources, etc. I did discuss the textual sources once in a thread concerning "Hurs", but after that was closed and was told not to, I haven't partook in it. I've done it in other places, other forums, message boards, and in real life.

You had no trouble finding moral equivalence in doing so, why when asked to do it genuinely do you care about forum rules? The proof says, because you're unable to do that.

This statement doesn't even mean anything.

Yes, I've noticed you have a tendency to ignore rational discussion...

And I've noticed your tendency to avoid and obfuscate the issue.

You really are having a hard time with this reading comprehension aren't you?

I'm doing fine.

Those are your words I was answering to...

What was the relevance of of clarifying how it isn't "interjection" if one posts in a public forum? As I said, diversion and obfuscation.

That's a history of playing dumb, a blatant lie, and a lack of reading comprehension; sorry, you're not good enough to play word games with me.

Apparently not. I don't play games of semantic BS.

[vta]

I love that Giff.

Very fitting in this case...

:laugh1:

[vta]

I haven't done what I can on this forum,

I don't play games of semantic BS

:laugh2:

Well I guess in fact you do...

Keep it coming and by the way, why not answer the question? I didn't restrict it to this forum when I asked. What are you doing about it?

'Nuff said.

[Dallas]

You mean, kind of like you lied about the fact that you didn't stereotype a group of religious believers and a religion from a silly listing of 10 militant "Islamic" organizations, right?

I haven't done what I can on this forum. It isn't allowable to speak about my religion on here. Countering stereotypes concerning a religion involve detailed discussion about the religion itself: its beliefs, practices, textual sources, etc. I did discuss the textual sources once in a thread concerning "Hurs", but after that was closed and was told not to, I haven't partook in it. I've done it in other places, other forums, message boards, and in real life.



This statement doesn't even mean anything.



And I've noticed your tendency to avoid and obfuscate the issue.



I'm doing fine.



What was the relevance of of clarifying how it isn't "interjection" if one posts in a public forum? As I said, diversion and obfuscation.



Apparently not. I don't play games of semantic BS.


Simple word stop and that means forever and that's a mighty long time, but Im here to tell you, there's nothing else.

http://www.churchofthecustomer.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/20/prince.jpg Stop!

[zrinkill]

http://www.churchofthecustomer.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/20/prince.jpg

His name is Prince ...... and he is funky!

[vta]

Simple word stop and that means forever and that's a mighty long time, but Im here to tell you, there's nothing else.

http://www.churchofthecustomer.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/11/20/prince.jpg Stop!

:muttley:

[silverbear]

Sorry if you took offense to my post.

I did, and it wasn't the first time... you don't seem to be able to argue politics, even with those you say you consider friends, without being insulting to them... I have been careful to reserve my insults for those in power that I'm angry at, and I'm past sick of being on the receiving end of your garbage...

So you should not continue to delude yourself that I consider you a friend... I'm done with you, on that level...

And you have nobody but yourself to blame for that... ice dislikes my politics, and we argue about it, but we treat each other with respect... it's a defect in your character, I think, that you have to get so deeply angry at those who disagree with you... I have deep anger toward Bush, it's true, anger that I've never felt for a politician before (not even Nixon), but I do not have anger at those of you who still back him...

[silverbear]

sb - and we also found out he had HOW many deal behind closed doors with the UN and France among others?

Ice, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here... if you could fill in the blanks a little for me, I might be able to offer some kind of response that will make a LITTLE sense...

yes i'm pushing some of these analogies but in the end it doesn't matter. if you opposed the war, you still do.

But I didn't oppose the war-- at first... it was only when it became real clear that there were no WMDs that could threaten us that I came to oppose the war, because that was the ONLY reason I supported the war in the first place; I let Dubya convince me that Saddam posed a threat to me that he simply didn't pose...

It was only when I realized that that I came to hate the war, and came to hate Dubya... I didn't vote for him in 2000, but my reasons were fairly benign... I thought he lacked the experience to be President, and I thought that he'd failed in most every business venture he attempted... I did not see that as the resume of a man who would make a good President... but though I voted for Gore, I was not one of those outraged when Dubya wound up winning, instead I hoped for the best...

And yes, ice, I feel that my hatred of Dubya is quite reasonable, and well-earned... there are 4000 dead soldiers as a direct result of his malfeasance, what's not to hate about that??

[silverbear]

I see, ONLY BUSH knew the "truth". There is no way he could have been mislead by the information that every major intel organization in the World had.

If that's the case, why did Cheney go over to Langley Park and berate the honchos at the CIA when their first intelligence report failed to give the administration the "smoking gun" that it wanted??

And why did out staunch allies, the British, circulate an intelligence memo in which they flatly said that we were trying to "fix" the intelligence around our agenda, that agenda being the invasion of Iraq??

I've said on a number of occasions that there are only two possible explanations for this-- either what you want to believe is true, and Dubya was misled by our intelligence, or he knew what the truth was, and lied to us...

Well, let's assume for a second that your explanation is the complete truth, and that Dubya was misled by our intelligence... in that case, he got us into a war on bad intel, which makes him completely incompetent; you don't go to WAR unless you're DAMNED SURE you've got your facts straight...

But like I said, that Cheney trip to Langley and the Downing Street Memo provide compelling reason to believe that Dubya knew he was lying to us... and we KNOW he deliberately misled us about the Niger situation, we KNOW he'd been told the truth about that before he went on the air and distorted what happened there...

So, either Dubya was incompetent, or he was a liar... I've looked at the evidence, and I believe strongly that it's the latter... not because I WANT to believe that, but because there is evidence that's the case...

That's what you righties consistently ignore, that there IS evidence out there that our leaders lied right through their teeth to us...

[silverbear]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i87cZ3Og6ts

tunnel vision is beautiful if you don't wanna see reality. this is clinton saying he has them and is developing them and he guarantees some day he'll use 'em.

So, because Clinton was wrong, that justifies what Dubya did??

Interesting logic...


sb - how come all this was also said before bush ever took office yet bush lied?

Apparently our British allies concluded as much, privately...

The Downing Street Memo is the 800 pound gorilla in the room... it clearly shows that our biggest allies had their doubts about this administration's agenda in Iraq...

how come only bush lied, sb?

You'd have to ask him why he lied, ice... Clinton was wrong, but hey, he never acted on his error...

But yes, I'm convinced by the available evidence that Dubya lied to us about Iraq... I knew at the time he was lying when he and his people kept on insinuating that Saddam had a role in 9/11, because I knew about the history of deep animosity between Hussein and bin Laden, and I knew there was no way those two would ever conspire to do ANYTHING...

But I let him convince me that the WMDs issue was real, and right now I can't figure out why I ever bought that happy horsebleep, when as I said I knew that part of what he was telling us was a crock... that should have made me suspicious about the rest of what he was telling us, and I'm annoyed at myself that I let myself be so easily played...

So to sum up, I believe that Clinton was wrong, but was honestly mistaken... I believe Dubya was wrong, but I think he knew he was selling us swamp land...

[Sasquatch]

But I didn't oppose the war-- at first... it was only when it became real clear that there were no WMDs that could threaten us that I came to oppose the war, because that was the ONLY reason I supported the war in the first place; I let Dubya convince me that Saddam posed a threat to me that he simply didn't pose...

It was only when I realized that that I came to hate the war, and came to hate Dubya... I didn't vote for him in 2000, but my reasons were fairly benign... I thought he lacked the experience to be President, and I thought that he'd failed in most every business venture he attempted... I did not see that as the resume of a man who would make a good President... but though I voted for Gore, I was not one of those outraged when Dubya wound up winning, instead I hoped for the best...

And yes, ice, I feel that my hatred of Dubya is quite reasonable, and well-earned... there are 4000 dead soldiers as a direct result of his malfeasance, what's not to hate about that??

That pretty much sums up the evolution of my thought as well. I voted Green in 2000 because I was tired of the Democrats and wasn't repulsed at the prospect of a Republican president. I'm still weary of the Democrats but am absolutely appalled at what this president has done in Iraq to the shame of our country. I would never have thought it possible that the United States would launch an unprovoked attack against a nation that posed no physical threat to our people, choosing to destroy the lives of the millions because our heads of state lacked the patience and fortitude to continue with an admittedly frustrating diplomatic situation with a petulant second-rate dictator.

Of course, to accuse opponents of the administration as "Bush bashers" is just a convenient way to dismiss criticism and avoid the unpleasant truths that will become the final verdict of history in due time.

[Dallas]

That pretty much sums up the evolution of my thought as well. I voted Green in 2000 because I was tired of the Democrats and wasn't repulsed at the prospect of a Republican president. I'm still weary of the Democrats but am absolutely appalled at what this president has done in Iraq to the shame of our country. I would never have thought it possible that the United States would launch an unprovoked attack against a nation that posed no physical threat to our people, choosing to destroy the lives of the millions because our heads of state lacked the patience to continue with an admittedly frustrating diplomatic situation with a petulant second-rate dictator.

Of course, to accuse opponents of the administration as "Bush bashers" is just a convenient way to dismiss criticism and avoid the unpleasant truths that will become the final verdict of history in due time.

You really are going to ride even the glue out of this horse, aren't you Sas?

Maybe just maybe put a little bit of that anger and hatred you have all balled up inside you to some good use.

Go plant some trees this weekend. Maybe head on down to the local bean cafe and serve up some nice spam for someone (yes I volunteer). Build a little house for some homeless folks maybe. I don't know. What I do know is that folks like you need to realize that GW is nearing the end. You should be thankful. But you aren't. You wish to stew and marinate on all that angry grief stirring inside your body. That is almost sad bro. Really is.

I couldn't stand Clinton and Hill when they were up there. I loathed the man. I never once allowed him to effect my life, like it appears you do.

You need some family intervention me thinks.

Call an aunt, maybe.

[Sasquatch]

You really are going to ride even the glue out of this horse, aren't you Sas?

Maybe just maybe put a little bit of that anger and hatred you have all balled up inside you to some good use.

Go plant some trees this weekend. Maybe head on down to the local bean cafe and serve up some nice spam for someone (yes I volunteer). Build a little house for some homeless folks maybe. I don't know. What I do know is that folks like you need to realize that GW is nearing the end. You should be thankful. But you aren't. You wish to stew and marinate on all that angry grief stirring inside your body. That is almost sad bro. Really is.

I couldn't stand Clinton and Hill when they were up there. I loathed the man. I never once allowed him to effect my life, like it appears you do.

You need some family intervention me thinks.

Call an aunt, maybe.

It must be reassuring to paint critics of the war as angry malcontents instead of acknowledging that you are the willing dupe of unscrupulous people.

http://sixmeatbuffet.com/images/thank-you-sir.JPG

:D

Far be it from me to deny a man a precious psychological crutch.

Enjoy the latest addition to your collection of fictions.

Bottoms up!

[Dallas]

It must be reassuring to paint critics of the war as angry malcontents instead of acknowledging that you are the willing dupe of unscrupulous people.

http://sixmeatbuffet.com/images/thank-you-sir.JPG

:D

Far be it from me to deny a man a desperately needed psychological crutch.

Enjoy the latest addition to your collection of fictions.

Spin it however you like. The fact remains w/ you and your outward obsessiveness of repeating the past over and over and over and over and over and well you probably understand now. Its not good for you. That is all that I am saying.


So you know.....


Dont go away mad...as they say....just...you know. ;)

[Sasquatch]

The fact remains w/ you and your outward obsessiveness of repeating the past over and over and over and over and over

Reverend Wright anyone? :rolleyes:

[silverbear]

It must be reassuring to paint critics of the war as angry malcontents

Well, I AM pretty much an "angry malcontent", so I'm not particularly insulted at being accused of that... I happen to believe my anger is not only justifiable, it's a moral imperative, given the facts...

[iceberg]

Ice, I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make here... if you could fill in the blanks a little for me, I might be able to offer some kind of response that will make a LITTLE sense...



But I didn't oppose the war-- at first... it was only when it became real clear that there were no WMDs that could threaten us that I came to oppose the war, because that was the ONLY reason I supported the war in the first place; I let Dubya convince me that Saddam posed a threat to me that he simply didn't pose...

It was only when I realized that that I came to hate the war, and came to hate Dubya... I didn't vote for him in 2000, but my reasons were fairly benign... I thought he lacked the experience to be President, and I thought that he'd failed in most every business venture he attempted... I did not see that as the resume of a man who would make a good President... but though I voted for Gore, I was not one of those outraged when Dubya wound up winning, instead I hoped for the best...

And yes, ice, I feel that my hatred of Dubya is quite reasonable, and well-earned... there are 4000 dead soldiers as a direct result of his malfeasance, what's not to hate about that??

funny, sb. it was quite clear when i said it. but it also blows up your "bush is a liar" routine, so i can see where you'd get confused.

if bush lied saying saddam had WMD simply to go to war - why did everyone else on ALL FREAKING SIDES of the political agenda also agree and say the same thing but they're not liars?

[iceberg]

It must be reassuring to paint critics of the war as angry malcontents instead of acknowledging that you are the willing dupe of unscrupulous people.

but yet it's ok to classify other views as just being willing dupes?

sass, you're a classic. i won't say what cause i'm just not in the mood for a mod warning but i can see nothing has changed even from the old renegade board days. you know, back when one day you say your daddy bought you a beamer and the next day you whine at bush for having daddy give him everything.

[silverbear]

funny, sb. it was quite clear when i said it. but it also blows up your "bush is a liar" routine, so i can see where you'd get confused.

if bush lied saying saddam had WMD simply to go to war - why did everyone else on ALL FREAKING SIDES of the political agenda also agree and say the same thing but they're not liars?

Because they bought what Dubya was telling them... like me, it didn't occur to them that the President of the United States would lie to them about something so important...

Which is, of course, why Dubya's approval rating is in the toilet-- the American voters have figured out that the man lied to us...

Yes, ice, I am dead morally convinced that Dubya knew that he was lying to us with all his talk about "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" crap... I am convinced he came into office fully intending to find a reason to invade Iraq, and he cynically used our national tragedy to further that agenda...

Which is precisely why I hate him so very much... the thing is, I've laid out the case for why it appears the man lied to us-- the Downing Street Memos, and the infamous Cheney visit to Langley Park-- and not once has any of you Bush apologists even attempted to address those very real episodes...

You just tell me that I'm silly to believe that he lied to us, and refuse to address the evidence that's the case... you seem to want to portray me as some conspiracy theorist, making up garbage out of thin air, when of course that's not the case... I have perfectly valid reasons for believing what I do, reasons that stand unrebutted by anybody on your side of the argument...

[iceberg]

Because they bought what Dubya was telling them... ...

i stopped reading there.

many were saying this before dubya hit office.

you hate out of convenience, not reality. i just won't listen to that crap anymore than an obama preacher spouting hate also.

[silverbear]

i stopped reading there.

many were saying this before dubya hit office.

you hate out of convenience, not reality. i just won't listen to that crap anymore than an obama preacher spouting hate also.

Then don't... put me on ignore, if it makes you feel better...

You can worship that venal SOB, but I never will...

[iceberg]

Then don't... put me on ignore, if it makes you feel better...

You can worship that venal SOB, but I never will...

who said i worshiped him?

not me. you seem to say that out of convenience. : )

no need to put you on ignore, but forgive me if i don't read part 17,383 of the same speech again.

[silverbear]

who said i worshiped him?

A bit of hyperbole on my part, based on how annoyed you get at those who criticize the guy...

no need to put you on ignore, but forgive me if i don't read part 17,383 of the same speech again.

Whatever works for you, ol' buddy...

[Cajuncowboy]

I did, and it wasn't the first time... you don't seem to be able to argue politics, even with those you say you consider friends, without being insulting to them... I have been careful to reserve my insults for those in power that I'm angry at, and I'm past sick of being on the receiving end of your garbage...

So you should not continue to delude yourself that I consider you a friend... I'm done with you, on that level...

And you have nobody but yourself to blame for that... ice dislikes my politics, and we argue about it, but we treat each other with respect... it's a defect in your character, I think, that you have to get so deeply angry at those who disagree with you... I have deep anger toward Bush, it's true, anger that I've never felt for a politician before (not even Nixon), but I do not have anger at those of you who still back him...

You really need to get off your high horse feigning being insulted over something unless you can show me where you were insulted. I think someone who has this kind of an issue may be the one with a defect in character. Again, either lose the stupid attitude or prove where I insulted you. :rolleyes:

[Cajuncowboy]

If that's the case, why did Cheney go over to Langley Park and berate the honchos at the CIA when their first intelligence report failed to give the administration the "smoking gun" that it wanted??

And why did out staunch allies, the British, circulate an intelligence memo in which they flatly said that we were trying to "fix" the intelligence around our agenda, that agenda being the invasion of Iraq??

I've said on a number of occasions that there are only two possible explanations for this-- either what you want to believe is true, and Dubya was misled by our intelligence, or he knew what the truth was, and lied to us...

Well, let's assume for a second that your explanation is the complete truth, and that Dubya was misled by our intelligence... in that case, he got us into a war on bad intel, which makes him completely incompetent; you don't go to WAR unless you're DAMNED SURE you've got your facts straight...

But like I said, that Cheney trip to Langley and the Downing Street Memo provide compelling reason to believe that Dubya knew he was lying to us... and we KNOW he deliberately misled us about the Niger situation, we KNOW he'd been told the truth about that before he went on the air and distorted what happened there...

So, either Dubya was incompetent, or he was a liar... I've looked at the evidence, and I believe strongly that it's the latter... not because I WANT to believe that, but because there is evidence that's the case...

That's what you righties consistently ignore, that there IS evidence out there that our leaders lied right through their teeth to us...


:lmao2:

Bush lied and the rest of the world was mislead.

:lmao2:

Wow. That is truly amazing.

[iceberg]

A bit of hyperbole on my part, based on how annoyed you get at those who criticize the guy...

when it's the only thing you do and it seems to be more for you than real, yes, sb. it gets old.

like i said time and time again but we always go astray - how come before bush took office many said saddam had to go but bush is a liar?

i'm not defending bush, just looking for honest consistancy. if bush lied didn't he get his intel from clinton - who said the very same thing yet was NOT a liar?

seems bush is a liar out of convenience to his haters more than anything.

[Cajuncowboy]

when it's the only thing you do and it seems to be more for you than real, yes, sb. it gets old.

like i said time and time again but we always go astray - how come before bush took office many said saddam had to go but bush is a liar?

i'm not defending bush, just looking for honest consistancy. if bush lied didn't he get his intel from clinton - who said the very same thing yet was NOT a liar?

seems bush is a liar out of convenience to his haters more than anything.

:bow:

See post #195

[SuspectCorner]

"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

- Herrman Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Germany

[iceberg]

:bow:

See post #195

he never seems to answer that question, cc. just shout out louder how bush sucks.