Originally posted by sithsaber408
*sigh*I'm sympathetic to your views, in every way (ask PVS) but I think you misunderstood.
That's not 665,000 enemy combatants dead, or insurgents or al-quieda.
Thats Iraqi citizens, innocent civilian bystanders.
You know, the ones who we are operating on their freedom?
Source?
Any proof that all 665,000 were all innocent civilian bystanders?
Originally posted by sithsaber408
*sigh*I'm sympathetic to your views, in every way (ask PVS) but I think you misunderstood.
That's not 665,000 enemy combatants dead, or insurgents or al-quieda.
Thats Iraqi citizens, innocent civilian bystanders.
You know, the ones who we are operating on their freedom?
he knows that. he's just trolling and being blatantly racist. all of which remains suspiciously tolerated.
symantics game for the win
Originally posted by jaden101
read this eariler today...John Hoplins University used a statistical analysis which isn't particularly applicable...they surveyed 47 random areas...if even a few of those areas had unusually high death rates then it would skew the results
i believe they also took into consideration the overall mortality rate for all reasons as opposed to people killed because of military action
they also published a similar finding based on the same style of research that produces a figure of 100,000.
i still think that iraq body count probably have the most accurate death count...they've been using media and charity figures since the beginning of the war to calculate their figures
while i agree that such statistical math is fuzzy when dealing with such a disproportionate set of territories, iraqbodycount seems to only serve as an official minimum deathtoll. (those reported)
Originally posted by PVS
symantics game for the winwhile i agree that such statistical math is fuzzy when dealing with such a disproportionate set of territories, iraqbodycount seems to only serve as an official minimum deathtoll. (those reported)
true...either aren't perfect systems...but 1 has been pretty consistant and the other has produced 2 wildly different set of results...and doesn't differentiate between violent death and those caused by "normal" means
maybe i'm just an optimist...
the situation was bad before the war and its bad now...whether it is better or worse seems to depend on the source...most of which probably have some political bias
Originally posted by KidRock
Source?Any proof that all 665,000 were all innocent civilian bystanders?
Ummm... Are you saying that every bomb that has gone off in a populous market place didn't kill 50-100 civilians but rather terrorists who just happened to be in the area?
Are you saying the mass murders triggered by secular violence over the last months were terrorist being executed? You know the ones where the authorities say "50 bodies were found dead in Iraq over the last week, believed victims of the violence..."
Or all the police and army recruits and government officials killed in attacks?
Or the civilians caught in the cross fire between coallition and Iraqi security forces and the insurgants?
I have heard the figure given is verifiable with Iraqi government records and the body count from terrorist actions, accidental death and all the rest. By all accounts on a week by week basis the average number of people dying unnatural deaths is greater now then during Saddam regime.
Now this doesn't mean that more people have died now then during Saddam's years in office, just that on averages the rate of death is happening quicker now then when he was in power. And I would think that would be a pretty bad thing. But no, we get:
Better than 655,000 dead Americans.
Oh Jesus Christ. Do you actually believe that? You do realise Iraq wasn't going to be responsible for any American deaths don't you? Where does that logic come from? Iraq wasn't in with the terrorists. Iraq wasn't stock piling weapons. Iraq wasn't on the verge of invading. Iraq wasn't a threat to the US.
If all the reports are right then if anything the situation in Iraq has compounded the terrorist threat. Iraqis are dying, and now there are more terrorists then before, who hate the US just as much. In what view is this concidered a... sucess?
This is reason for Liberals to call back the troops, if you think this is bad, just watch once all our troops leave
So how long should they stay? You do realise there has been no sign of the villance abating. By all accounts the nation is just as much in danger of civil war now then it was 6 months ago. Or a year.
Originally posted by PVS
44% americans still believe that saddam hussein was partly responsible for 911coincidentally 44% of americans are retarded.
I find myself agreeing with that figure.
I mean honestly. Don't they know that Saddam and Bin Laden's history was far from that of friends. If I'm not mistaken when Osama was looking to branch out years ago Saddam shut him down in Iraq as it would have been a destabilising influence. Hell Saudi Arabia contributed more to 9/11 then Saddam did.
All I have seen from the reports, of what Iraq achieved, is there are terrorists where there were once none, there are soldiers and civilians dead when they likely wouldn't have been otherwise and there is a fragile democracy that many commentators doubt will last if the west pulls out.
I honestly wonder about the those who think Iraq was tangibly linked to 9/11.
Originally posted by Darth Kreiger
It was about WMD's, and Saddam.....Anycraps, @ Imperial Samura
We should stay there till their Military is functioning, at the most 3-4 Years. Most likely 2
You can't have a modern functioning military when you announce to the graduating classes that they'll have to defend fellow citizens who don't subscribe to teh same islamic sect they do and everyone in the army strips off their uniforms and leaves.
That's what happened to their first few classes. Look it up. When the kurdish recruits were told they were going to be deployed to Tsunni territories, they tore off their uniforms and walked away. The only thing they can agree on is that they hate each other. That's why it's called a civil war.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
You can't have a modern functioning military when you announce to the graduating classes that they'll have to defend fellow citizens who don't subscribe to teh same islamic sect they do and everyone in the army strips off their uniforms and leaves.That's what happened to their first few classes. Look it up. When the kurdish recruits were told they were going to be deployed to Tsunni territories, they tore off their uniforms and walked away. The only thing they can agree on is that they hate each other. That's why it's called a civil war.
Indeed, and there have been reports that some of the religious killings going on have involved soldiers off duty (or even on duty) - it doesn't bode well when members of the army are using their US provided training to raid the neighbourhoods of Muslims not of there particular liking.
It was about WMD's, and Saddam.....
WMDs that didn't exist, an aging dictator who the world hadn't seen fit to try and bring to justice for over a decade since the actual crimes he is accused of commiting and to bring democracy to the people (the ones who haven't died in the process anyway.) It has been an amazing sucess hasn't it?
Yes - the anneals of history are going to consider this the USA finest hour.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Indeed, and there have been reports that some of the religious killings going on have involved soldiers off duty (or even on duty) - it doesn't bode well when members of the army are using their US provided training to raid the neighbourhoods of Muslims not of there particular liking.WMDs that didn't exist, an aging dictator who the world hadn't seen fit to try and bring to justice for over a decade since the actual crimes he is accused of commiting and to bring democracy to the people (the ones who haven't died in the process anyway.) It has been an amazing sucess hasn't it?
Yes - the anneals of history are going to consider this the USA finest hour.
WMD's that did exist, have been found, maybe not on such a great scale, but still. Saddam was a terrible Dictator, he murdered countless people, and the new Government in the region will help with the other countries in the region.
The reason we're doing this late, is because people didn't wake up to the need until 9/11, and that didn't last long.
What the friendly Liberals want to do is leave and let the Country rot, like they did with so many, Somalia, Rwanda, hell even George Bush Sr ****ed up in the First Gulf War.