Could you back that statement up with some numbers please?
most accurate estimates of deaths since the 2002 war began can be found here
information on iraqi mass graves can be found here
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html
here
http://www.shianews.com/hi/articles/politics/0000374.php
That's quite a stretch. If Bush was serious about the war on terror he would have finished the job in Afghanistan rather than head to Iraq. He would have also gone after other governments that have far stronger ties to terrorist groups than Iraq.
perhaps he should have...but you cant be for 1 war and against another...it makes you look hypocritical doesn't it?...
Strange that no european has heard a word about that...
strange that several reports have been on the BBC about chemical weapons being used as IED's against coalition troops
The Iraq Survey Group (ISG)—the task force charged with coordinating the U.S.-led search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD)—has confirmed that an artillery round filled with sarin nerve agent was found in Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt told reporters May 17. A U.S. convoy found the shell, which was rigged as an improvised explosive device (IED), Kimmitt said, adding that a “very small” amount of nerve agent was released from the shell because it partially detonated before it could be disarmed. Two members of an explosive ordnance team sustained minor injuries as a result of exposure to the agent.
from here
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_06/ChemicalMunition.asp
that covers 2 of the 550 sarin shells that are unaccounted for
we went to war under the certain knowledge that hussein was developing...developing...DEVELOPING weapons of mass destruction. instead all they found was depleated chemical weapons courtesy of reagan 20+ years ago.
mastery of bullshit eh?...strangely enough all of these things are highly documented and publicised in the lead up to the war
Show me proof of any WMD's used against troops.Find any source to back up anything you are saying.
we went to war under the certain knowledge that hussein was developing...developing...DEVELOPING weapons of mass destruction. instead all they found was depleated chemical weapons courtesy of reagan 20+ years ago.
that would be the weapons they first claimed they didnt have because they were all destroyed...then refused to let the inspectors see they were destroyed...then said they were destroyed but had no proof of it...and then turned out not to be destroyed
shall we also go back to the argument about intelligence and remind ourselves that all the main world powers agreed on was true...
and not forget the fact that intelligence was extremely difficult to get because Saddam tracked down and killed many western agents of over the 10 years between the Gulf wars
did we also completely forget about one of Saddams own regime members who testified that WMD's were taken across the border into Syria before the war began?
i suggest you read his book...its rather good
http://www.gracestreet.co.uk/Details.asp?ProductID=80613
and then of course it brings us to the report issued to days ago that stated that over 500 WMD's which were supposed to have been destroyed had been found since 2003 and more were expected to be found
and strangely enough i can write an entire post with links to facts and not once have the childish need to call someone a moron or any other petty insult that many of you seem to need to back up your arguments
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
This is what I was reading on the subject of Iraq's chemical weapons today:http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060622/pl_afp/usiraqmilitaryweapons_060622191218
Basically those weapons are outdated.
reality check...they were considered lower hazard
would you like to check out a lower hazard version of Sarin under the hope that it might just tickle a bit and not actually melt your lungs out of your mouth?
thought not
and these depleted chemicals were still enough to injure troops who they were used on as an IED
not to mention that IRAQ SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEM ANYWAY
38475 42889
Originally posted by jaden101
most accurate estimates of deaths since the 2002 war began can be found here
Multiply the deaths the american occupation have caused in the last few years by the proportionate time of Saddam's regime and see what you get. Stats and numbers are a tricky thing.
Originally posted by jaden101
.but you cant be for 1 war and against another
Yes, in fact you can.
Originally posted by jaden101
it makes you look hypocritical doesn't it?...
No, not at all, and you sound rather silly for trying to make that point.
"We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London. The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. "Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000[/ib] Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades," said the group in a statement in May. "Many of these 'disappeared' are those whose remains are now being unearthed in mass graves all over Iraq."
so its a highball figure, but i'll take it. 290,000 over 20 years.
and then just to be nice, i'll submit the lowball figure for the iraqi
body count: 38475
(the first death on record being jan 1, 2003.)
so, since that number is based from aproximately 3 and a half years ago, that would mean that the same rate of iraqi deaths, over 20 years, would be roughly 215,000 people.
290,000 to 215,000
so yes, saddam had the slightly higher death average...but not by much 😬
:edit:
if figured by the maximum iraqi deathcount, then aprox 235,000
Originally posted by GCG
Hence me stressing that Saddam was in charge for so many years and US for a fraction of it.
thats irrelevant. all you can do is quote an average. things may be settled in a few years, or it could turn to a catastrophy taking hundreds of thousands. all we can do is quote an average, of 3 and a half years.
im not saying you're wrong, but you're not right either. we dont know.
yes lets do that shall we
42889/3 years to get a yearly amount
=14296.333 per year since the occupation began
x by 10 years =142963 ish
lets do the one for the iraq graves
300,000/53 graves examined = 5660.37
gives us an average of bodies per grave...multiply tha by 270 which is the number of graves found
1,528,301 in 10 years which is 152,800 per year so in 3 years that would be 459,400 which is 10 times that of the coalition tolls
Yes, in fact you can.
question...is south korea the most viable option
they've never funded terrorism...never used WMD or their neighbours
infact the US biggest gripe about them is the fact that they tested some long range missles which arent for WMD and its recognised that their longest range missles are 1300km
and that the Taepo Dong 2 missle is being developed
actually if we're doing solely on the basis of terrorism then why doesn't the US bomb itself seeing as it help fund the IRA campaigns in the UK for 30+ years...a campaign which took the lives of over 1800 people including a member of the British Royal Family
Originally posted by PVS
thats irrelevant. all you can do is quote an average. things may be settled in a few years, or it could turn to a catastrophy taking hundreds of thousands. all we can do is quote an average, of 3 and a half years.
im not saying you're wrong, but you're not right either. we dont know.
yes this is true we dont know what will happen in the next however many years
it could get better or it could get worse
it certainly appears to be worse now to the west because it gets reported and at least we have access to reasonably accurate if somewhat biased (both ways depending on your source) facts
Originally posted by jaden101
reality check...they were considered lower hazardwould you like to check out a lower hazard version of Sarin under the hope that it might just tickle a bit and not actually melt your lungs out of your mouth?
thought not
and these depleted chemicals were still enough to injure troops who they were used on as an IED
not to mention that IRAQ SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEM ANYWAY
A depleted chemical agent used in battle is NOT a weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION. A weapon of mass destruction is NOT a weapon used in guerilla warfare. To be a weapono of mass destruction it has to kill thousands of people in a single attack. NOTHING Iraq has even comes close to mass destructioins.
For ****s sake, for every one thousand American troops the Iraqis kill, we kill TEN thousand.
Originally posted by PVS
by your numbers the u.s. comes to 285926, which is about 4000 short of tying.
but lets be real. we all know damn well that the high figure probably amounts to not even half the actual death toll.
you mean from the current civillian casualties?
if so then yes there always going to be problems cause its always ongoing
many of the killings are probably never discovered
but the site i posted is using every source it can to be accurate and have gone as far as listing every incident and the death tolls from them
it also takes into consideration killings by all sides in the war
its a hell of a long list
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/bodycount_all.php?ts=1151022238
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
A depleted chemical agent used in battle is NOT a weapon of MASS DESTRUCTION. A weapon of mass destruction is NOT a weapon used in guerilla warfare. To be a weapono of mass destruction it has to kill thousands of people in a single attack. NOTHING Iraq has even comes close to mass destructioins.For ****s sake, for every one thousand American troops the Iraqis kill, we kill TEN thousand.
see now you're just making things up...
and remember...iraq said they had destroyed those weapons...quite clearly given that they were found then they didnt destroy them did they?
whats to debate?...iraq said they didnt have them...they did
regardless of the state they were in
Originally posted by jaden101whats to debate?...iraq said they didnt have them...they did
regardless of the state they were in
they had depleted munitions barely suitable for guerrilla warfare.
that is not a weapon of mass destruction. that is not what anyone went to war for. we all knew he had those munitions because they have a u.s. frikin price tag on them.
Originally posted by PVS
they had depleted munitions barely suitable for guerrilla warfare.
that is not a weapon of mass destruction. that is not what anyone went to war for. we all knew he had those munitions because they have a u.s. frikin price tag on them.
Mustard gas over ten years will become a sticky putty, unusable for much other than a sort of crude mace on one or two people.
Sarin however, is still very deadly when used on people, and 500 canisters of it that Saddam said was gone means SOMETHING on the grand scale.
This is the tip of the iceberg.
Another 3 or 4 years, and Bush will be vindicated.