War, Casualties, Saddam, Bush, Etc.

[Mad Mardigan]

My bad.

[budullewraagh]

Still waiting on any sort of confirmation on this.

it is universally known that foxnews is biased conservative filth, but people don't report it as being so. im not going to give you confirmation on that. it's pretty obvious that it has the most conservative figures out there.

 

Just wondering who it was that manufactured the propaganda and then convinced everyone to believe it.

perhaps you should do an arin whois

 

And then we went in and we didn't. I guess we planned a little better than they thought we would.

or did we? i will ask you YET AGAIN. WHO IS COUNTING THE BODIES?

 

 

Yes he was. The fact that he got duped on the Uranium doesn't discount the fact that he sought uranium. Want to explain why he tampered with cameras and things at nuclear facilities? Maybe he was just looking for a little saturday night fun.

yellowcake? he never got it, nor was he seeking it. also, i'd like to add that uranium isn't at all difficult to obtain. hey, my chem teacher has some. care to bomb her house? now, if they obtained the equipment required to isolate various isotopes, then we'd have a case against him. and hmm, what did bush do with north korea? he COMPLETELY AVOIDED THEM when north korea blatently said "we are making nukes."

he CONTINUED to avoid them when they said "we have nukes. we are willing to stop our production if you sign a document stating you will not attack us unless we attack other people."

 

Try several thousand unaccounted for.

hmm, and we still haven't found them.

 

Perhaps thats what Bill Clinton thought about Osama.

iraq and osama bin laden didn't get along. state terrorism would be a death sentence for mr hussein, and he'd rather not be killed/arrested. and, more importantly, WHAT IS HIS INCENTIVE?

 

Stop lying to yourself. You were wrong about that, how can you even make the same claim again?

no, i'm correct in my mind until you show me figures. i'll say i believe he killed those 5,000 and a few more in his many years. i am completely positive that he killed more, but certainly less than 25,000.

 

blike, i am debating the sanity of our president to go to war when the most credible source said "CONGRATS! YOU ARE GOING TO COMMIT MASS MURDER ON 500,000 CIVILIANS!" it is the INTENT that i am questioning.

 

2) Support for the idea that iraqbodycount.net " is actually a conservative site posing as an anti-war site. "

see my above statement.

 

most Iraqis are happy

except the ones who are pissed off that we killed their families, the millions who are without homes, and the ones who are pissed off that they have no money and no means for obtaining it, which just so happens to be the vast majority of the iraqi population

[blike]

im not going to give you confirmation on that. it's pretty obvious that it has the most conservative figures out there.

So FoxNews is running the site now? Give me a break. You're starting to embarass yourself. Take a look at the authors of the page. What do you mean the most conservative figures out there? You haven't even posted any other figures for us to compare.

 

perhaps you should do an arin whois

Or perhaps you should give me a straight answer.

 

or did we? i will ask you YET AGAIN. WHO IS COUNTING THE BODIES?

Post other figures please. Just give me something. I don't care where it comes from, I want you to find another figure.

 

now, if they obtained the equipment required to isolate various isotopes, then we'd have a case against him.

He sought enriched uranium. It also appears they were at least drawing up plans to build a centrifuge to separate the isotopes.

 

iraq and osama bin laden didn't get along.

You completely missed the point of that statement. You said that Iraq didn't have the army to sail over here. Neither did Osama.

 

blike, i am debating the sanity of our president to go to war when the most credible source said "CONGRATS! YOU ARE GOING TO COMMIT MASS MURDER ON 500,000 CIVILIANS!" it is the INTENT that i am questioning

Turns out they weren't that credible, and several people probably knew it. Besides, they didn't say that 500,000 would be killed. You keep saying that but that's not what the UN said.

[budullewraagh]

So FoxNews is running the site now?

i never made that connection.

 

What do you mean the most conservative figures out there?

the most conservative figures meaning that, in their extreme lack of efforts, the united states has found 11,000+ dead bodies. this casts aside all the others who we have yet to and little incentive to count

 

i will ask you YET AGAIN. WHO IS COUNTING THE BODIES?

perhaps you should give me a straight answer. funny the order you used in your point by point argument; you set it up so that you look like a hypocrite.

 

enriched uranium

define "enriched uranium"

 

You completely missed the point of that statement. You said that Iraq didn't have the army to sail over here. Neither did Osama.

and you misinterpreted my words as well. i will quote myself:

iraq and osama bin laden didn't get along. state terrorism would be a death sentence for mr hussein, and he'd rather not be killed/arrested. and, more importantly, WHAT IS HIS INCENTIVE?

you failed to address the entire issue

 

but that's not what the UN said.

yes, it is, and i gave you sources. i will spoon feed you this one:

http://www.harpers.org/UnitedNations.html

here is what they say:

A United Nations report entitled “Likely Humanitarian Scenarios” estimated that an American invasion of Iraq will result in some 500,000 casualties and about 900,000 refugees, who will require food and shelter; up to 3 million Iraqis could require “therapeutic feeding.” The U.S. military admitted that it has spammed thousands of Iraqis with email messages urging them to defy Saddam Hussein. »

[jgerlica]

No, I will not partake.

[prokaryote]

I'm trying to restrain my utter horror from the realization that the left of this country are so blinded by partisanship and rabid hatred for george w. bush that they lose the perspective and moral clarity to see evil for what it is. If evil were as simple as death counts then the Allies and Axis could be compared as equally evil entities.

 

And yet here you sit' date=' claiming that Bush and Saddam are equals because in addition to the death counts, Bush took our rights away and spent our money. But hey, 50,000 kurds don't matter right? Did someone say rights? Civil Liberties? Want to talk about rights? Perhaps you should spend a little more time getting to know Mr. Hussein.

 

Failed to defend our nation? What? When is the last time we were attacked on our soil? Oh, 9/11. Seems like he's done just fine to me. There will be another attack, it's only a matter of when. But as the 9/11 commission stated, we're safer now than we were before, but thats hardly anything.

 

Hey, just because Saddam killed and opressed more people doesn't make him a bad man. Besides, liberating Iraqi and Afghani people, while securing safety for our nation and other nations in the region, while dismantling the majority of Al-Queada's leadership and organization, while overturning two horrible regimes, while injecting a sense of freedom into a part of the world ruled by islamic fundamentalism, while rooting out terrorists, while giving 50 million people the right to choose their own leader is costing us too much money.[/quote']

 

 

well the reagan admin. did a wonderful job of supplying hussein's regime with the capability of producing WMDs didn't they, despite the fact that we knew hussein had used chemical weapons against his own people? but that didn't matter then huh as it urgently matters now. well it was different administration then right? well good chunk of the key policy makers now were also part of reagan admin. was it because khomeni was a bigger threat then? oh wait, i remember reading something about iran-contra or some such thing in my early teens....

 

what is this "moral clarity" you speak of? is it related to that whatchamacallit thing, "axis of evil"?

[atinymonkey]

The gas attack on the Kurds was in 1997 while President Clinton was in office. I doubt the Regan administration was aware of it, what with the 10 year leap into the future they would have to make.

[prokaryote]

actually the first big publicized gas attack on the kurds was in 1988 i believe. but, there's been evidence of their uses against the kurds (as well as the iranians), and US intelligence's knowledge of it, as far back as 1982.

[atinymonkey]

Dammit, your right. I have no idea why I was thinking it was 1997.

[budullewraagh]

actually, i believe the reagan administration started a war themselves:

 

1982: U.S. provides billions in aid to Saddam Hussein for weapons to kill Iranians.

 

1983: White House secretly gives Iran weapons to help them kill Iraqis.

[blike]

i never made that connection.

 

Apologies. I misread what you were stating.

 

the most conservative figures meaning that, in their extreme lack of efforts, the united states has found 11,000+ dead bodies. this casts aside all the others who we have yet to and little incentive to count

 

As far as I know, the U.S. doesn't do civilian body counts. “We don’t do body counts” -General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

 

i will ask you YET AGAIN. WHO IS COUNTING THE BODIES?

Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).

 

ABC - ABC News (USA)

AFP - Agence France-Presse

AP - Associated Press

AWST - Aviation Week and Space Technology

Al Jaz - Al Jazeera network

BBC - British Broadcasting Corporation

BG - Boston Globe

Balt. Sun - The Baltimore Sun

CT - Chicago Tribune

CO - Commondreams.org

CSM - Christian Science Monitor

DPA - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

FOX - Fox News

GUA - The Guardian (London)

HRW - Human Rights Watch

HT - Hindustan Times

ICRC - International Committ of the Red Cross

IND - The Independent (London)

IO - Intellnet.org

JT - Jordan Times

LAT - Los Angeles Times

MEN - Middle East Newsline

MEO - Middle East Online

MER - Middle East Report

MH - Miami Herald

NT - Nando Times

NYT - New York Times

Reuters - (includes Reuters Alertnet)

SABC - South African Broadcasting Corporation

SMH - Sydney Morning Herald

Sg.News - The Singapore News

Tel- The Telegraph (London)

Times - The Times (London)

TOI - Times of India

TS - Toronto Star

UPI - United Press International

WNN - World News Network

WP - Washington Post

 

For a source to be considered acceptable to this project it must comply with the following standards: (1) site updated at least daily; (2) all stories separately archived on the site, with a unique url (see Note 1 below); (3) source widely cited or referenced by other sources; (4) English Language site; (5) fully public (preferably free) web-access.

 

iraq and osama bin laden didn't get along. state terrorism would be a death sentence for mr hussein, and he'd rather not be killed/arrested. and, more importantly, WHAT IS HIS INCENTIVE?

 

Seems like a bit of a side issue, I never said they did get along. However, didn't Iraq's ambassador offer asylum to bin laden and his lieutenants back in 1999? I assume you're talking about Saddam's incentive to attack the US. Probably has something to do with the fact that we're his sworn enemy.

 

dfine "enriched uranium"

My mistake, he sought uranium, not the weapons-grade isotope.

 

 

yes, it is, and i gave you sources.

"COMMIT MASS MURDER ON 500,000 CIVILIANS!"

 

No, the U.N. never said 500,000 deaths. They said 500,000 casualties, which are not deaths.

 

"The total includes some 100,000 expected to be injured as a direct result of combat and a further 400,000 wounded as an indirect result of the devastation, according to estimates prepared by the World Health Organization, the document said."

[budullewraagh]

As far as I know, the U.S. doesn't do civilian body counts. “We don’t do body counts” -General Tommy Franks, US Central Command

 

funny you mention him. he left his job, you know. it makes sense that the united states doesn't "do body counts". that way, people like you can pretend civilians arent being slain in mass quantity.

 

Our sources include public domain newsgathering agencies with web access. A list of some core sources is given below. Further sources will be added provided they meet acceptable project standards (see below).

you know, im quite sure these sources don't walk around digging through the rubble of baghdad, dodging bullets.

 

Probably has something to do with the fact that we're his sworn enemy.

"sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"

hussein knew his limits; that's why he never attacked the united states.

 

They said 500,000 casualties, which are not deaths.

that is mostly irrelevant. when you get casualties in the hundreds of thousands, you cannot overlook the plight.

[blike]

that way, people like you can pretend civilians arent being slain in mass quantity.

 

Seems like it's more convenient for people like you who would like to believe Iraqi's are being slain by the hundreds of thousands so that you can continue comparing Bush to Hitler and Saddam.

 

that is mostly irrelevant.

 

No, actually it's central to the argument. Remember, we were arguing about who is more evil: Bush or Saddam.

 

To quote you: "COMMIT MASS MURDER ON 500,000 CIVILIANS!"

 

How can you make an accurate judgement when you don't even understand your own sources. What's to say the rest of the leftist propaganda you spill isn't just misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and lots of wishful thinking. 500,000 civilians were not mass murdered.

[r1dermon]

blike, let me start by asking you, how are you...your family...neighbors....i see you're from tampa, just hoping that you guys werent hit really hard...

back to the topic, you can't argue who is more evil, bush or saddam, thats like comparing apples and oranges. saddam was the leader of a dictatorship, bush is the leader of a democracy, not only that, but it is the worlds only superpower, a supreme being. saddam was a bad guy, no doubt...but he wasnt our sworn enemy, lol, it seems to me that our sworn enemy is everyone...north korea, syria, jordan...etc....more and more the citizens of these other countries are crying oppressors. this is not a good state for the US to be in. obviously if going to war with iraq was the "right" thing to do, 3 billion people wouldnt be pissed at us.

this issue will not be solved so long as republicans and democrats continue to find differences with each other. there should be no left or right, there should be a group of candidates that represent a sleuth of things. beliefs if you will. the whole purpose after 9/11 was to unite the country, obviously it was not on bush's agenda to unite the country, as he completely ignored half of it and went to iraq anyway. not only that, but he lied to the whole country. the entirety, you, me, the bum on 5th street downtown...everyone. and yet, because he represents your party you continually support him, not because you like him inherintly, but because you decided that you dont hate him because nobody hates him...as far as you know...because you're the typical talk radio listener. you follow sean hannity and dennis miller and rush limbaugh...i must say, that the war between partys is almost to the point that a civil war will erupt, and the antagonists will be your party. why not listen to what people have to say, instead of labeling them off the bat, "you're a typical liberal" because once that mindset is reached, you'll never take a word they say seriously. think about it.

[budullewraagh]

Seems like it's more convenient for people like you who would like to believe Iraqi's are being slain by the hundreds of thousands so that you can continue comparing Bush to Hitler and Saddam.

that did nothing to thwart the validity of my words.

 

democracy

rather, a very authoritarian republic.

[blike]

that did nothing to thwart the validity of my words.

I don't think that I need to make argument in my defense. Clearly I'm the only one digging up death counts, and so I should be the most aware. You can't demonstrate that I'm pretending they never happened. I'm the one encouraging you to look up death counts. If anyone is pretending it was you pretending that 500,000 of Iraqi's were "mass murdered".

[budullewraagh]

dude, this is starting to become sick. you seem to have no respect for the dead.

[blike]

dude, this is starting to become sick. you seem to have no respect for the dead.

 

I do have respect for the dead. Could you point to a post in which I disrespected the dead so I can clarify?

[budullewraagh]

by not showing remorce for them in multiple posts regarding casualty counts

[john5746]

You guys are having quite the discussion about deaths. I think something must be said about the reasons though.

 

I don't think you can compare deaths from a terrorist or dictator to deaths from a fight for freedom. The Iraqis clearly wanted Saddam out of there. Death is a terrible thing, but if it is for a just cause sometimes it is worth the price.

 

The problem is determing just cause.

[budullewraagh]

it's not so black and white as you make it out to be. "fight for freedom" as opposed to "terrorist/dictator indust deaths". it's not so polar.

[Mad Mardigan]

Do you know why Paris has so many trees?

 

So Germans could have shade.

 

There was a time when the world believed in this country, and everyone looks to us for help. Why dont we just pull everyone out of every country, and not help anyone anymore. Just protect our own, and clean out country of the illegals. Just completely Isolate ourselves from the world and let someone else worry about it.

[john5746]

Do you know why Paris has so many trees?

 

So Germans could have shade.

 

There was a time when the world believed in this country' date=' and everyone looks to us for help. Why dont we just pull everyone out of every country, and not help anyone anymore. Just protect our own, and clean out country of the illegals. Just completely Isolate ourselves from the world and let someone else worry about it.[/quote']

 

This was the case before the Iraq war. 99% felt Afghanistan was just. That is why the Senate believed Bush concerning Iraq. I remember thinking, why are we going there? I thought Bush had some secret silver bullet that proved Saddam was involved with 9/11. Nope, Nada.

[jordan]

Maybe he's waiting until the night before the election to reveal all that he has found...

[Mad Mardigan]

I have heard rumors that we have Bin Laden already, actually for a month or 2. The fact is also, we have never pulled out of Ashcanistan yet, (i spelled it on purpose like that), our soldiers have been traing Afghans combat tactics and having them lead us into towns so we are not taken as invaders but helpers. Its really a different situation there. If the news wouldnt report stuff like, we are tracking Bin Laden everytime he uses a cell phone, or put dumb journalist out there to draw a map of where they are. We might of had him earlier.