[Old Man G Funk]

I know. I was being a troll.

I'm hoping someone will step up and explain why our murder and torture is better for the Iraqis than Saddam's was.

Because ours comes at the cost of our own freedoms making it that much more sweet for them?

 

[Slugman]

We needed a military stronghold in the Middle East to protect our interests and since our good buddies, the Saudis, kicked us out of their country, Iraq fit the bill.

Once the terrorists see we ain't leaving and that their cause is totally unsupported by the citizens of Iraq, things will calm down and we can do what needs to be done.

Thank you Stephen Colbert...

 

[H8R]

things will calm down and we can do what needs to be done.

Harvest babies for Cheney?

 

[Westy]

We needed a military stronghold in the Middle East to protect our interests and since our good buddies, the Saudis, kicked us out of their country, Iraq fit the bill.

Once the terrorists see we ain't leaving and that their cause is totally unsupported by the citizens of Iraq, things will calm down and we can do what needs to be done.

And once the Palestinians realise the Israelis aren't leaving they will settle down too.

 

[skinny mike]

One right move done in the wrong way followed by countless wrong moves.

couldn't have said it better myself. voted wrong as the way everything has panned out was for the worse. and if it was about genocide how come we aren't doing much of anything in sudan?

 

[N8 v2.0]

couldn't have said it better myself. voted wrong as the way everything has panned out was for the worse. and if it was about genocide how come we aren't doing much of anything in sudan?

The UN is studying it....don't rush 'em!!!

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99577&highlight=genocide+sudan

 

[Westy]

The UN is studying it....don't rush 'em!!!

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99577&highlight=genocide+sudan

Lord know we wouldn't do anything about it without the UN's approval.

 

[skinny mike]

The UN is studying it....don't rush 'em!!!

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99577&highlight=genocide+sudan

it was more of a rhetorical question...

 

[rockwool]

I voted wrong out of several reasons:

*It is a violation of international law to invade a soverign country.

*Bush lied about all the reasons for legitimizing it.

*The cost the Iraqi people have to pay for living under civilwar like conditions, death, injuries, misery.

*It was not sanctioined by the UN and the coalition should be punished for being agressors and invading.

*Enviromental reasons, like depleted uranium.

*The theaft of the oil of the Iraqi people.

*A dictator was swaped for a psedo democratic puppet government and a dictator from the US.

 

[dante]

And once the Palestinians realise the Israelis aren't leaving they will settle down too.

just like those kind-hearted afghanis realized that the USSR wasn't going to leave and quieted down too...

 

[sanjuro]

We needed a military stronghold in the Middle East to protect our interests and since our good buddies, the Saudis, kicked us out of their country, Iraq fit the bill.

Once the terrorists see we ain't leaving and that their cause is totally unsupported by the citizens of Iraq, things will calm down and we can do what needs to be done.

Israel isn't good enough for you?

 

[rockwool]

so why was Baghdad off limit?

My guess is they thought Hussein had been bombed in to a puppet again.

We needed a military stronghold in the Middle East to protect our interests and since our good buddies, the Saudis, kicked us out of their country, Iraq fit the bill.

Once the terrorists see we ain't leaving and that their cause is totally unsupported by the citizens of Iraq, things will calm down and we can do what needs to be done.

Sometimes even FOX news can get it right! At least to 50% since the majority of the Iraqis don't support US precence.

And once the Palestinians realise the Israelis aren't leaving they will settle down too.

:biggrin:

 

[syadasti]

just like those kind-hearted afghanis realized that the USSR wasn't going to leave and quieted down too...

It only took about a hundred years for the UK to overcome the IRA too! It will be over in no time

Panel: IRA no longer poses a terrorist threat

 

[BurlyShirley]

Wow. Hindsight sure is 20/20 with you guys.

 

[RenegadeRick]

Wow. Hindsight sure is 20/20 with you guys.

Hindsight is 20/20 for everybody, but I was against this from the beginning.
Of course, I haven't been here long enough to be able to prove it.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Hindsight is 20/20 for everybody, but I was against this from the beginning.
Of course, I haven't been here long enough to be able to prove it.

Its wierd. I was pretty gung ho about it at the beginning. I was ready to go in myself and kill some towel heads. I get pretty disgusted with myself sometimes.

 

[Westy]

Its wierd. I was pretty gung ho about it at the beginning. I was ready to go in myself and kill some towel heads. I get pretty disgusted with myself sometimes.

It was from staring at your Dolf Lundgren rocket launcher picture too much.

 

[BurlyShirley]

It was from staring at your Dolf Lundgren rocket launcher picture too much.

It was from training to kill people all the time I guess. Heh. I mean, some of them did need to die, I just cant beleive I was 'excited' about it.

 

[N8 v2.0]

It was from staring at your Dolf Lundgren rocket launcher picture too much.

its been a long while since we've seen that pic.

thats the one that would send dh_girlie into a frenzy...

 

[BurlyShirley]

its been a long while since we've seen that pic.

thats the one that would send dh_girlie into a frenzy...

I tend to have that effect on most women

 

[dante]

Its wierd. I was pretty gung ho about it at the beginning. I was ready to go in myself and kill some towel heads. I get pretty disgusted with myself sometimes.

I have to say, you're getting pretty open-minded in your old age...

why were you gung ho about (WMD/9-11 connection)?

why are you thinking it wasn't a great idea now (lack of WMD/9-11, or just the high cost in both american and iraqi lives)?

just curious.

 

[stevew]

Once the terrorists see we ain't leaving and that their cause is totally unsupported by the citizens of Iraq, things will calm down and we can do what needs to be done.

No amount of angel dust could get me to believe that.

 

[BurlyShirley]

I have to say, you're getting pretty open-minded in your old age...

why were you gung ho about (WMD/9-11 connection)?

why are you thinking it wasn't a great idea now (lack of WMD/9-11, or just the high cost in both american and iraqi lives)?

just curious.

I was never gung ho about any 9/11 connection.

As for the WMD the paperwork was there. The paperwork is STILL there that there's a ton of missing chem/bio weapons. Now, whethere they exist or not will probably not be known. Do I think Saddam wanted WMD's? Yes. Of course.

Why am I against it now? I dont see a positive resolution. I just dont see it.

 

[$tinkle]

I voted wrong out of several reasons:

*It is a violation of international law to invade a soverign country.
*Bush lied about all the reasons for legitimizing it.
*The cost the Iraqi people have to pay for living under civilwar like conditions, death, injuries, misery.
*It was not sanctioined by the UN and the coalition should be punished for being agressors and invading.
*Enviromental reasons, like depleted uranium.
*The theaft of the oil of the Iraqi people.
*A dictator was swaped for a psedo democratic puppet government and a dictator from the US.

holy crap, dude.
- iraq surrendered its right to sovereignty for various reasons, all spelled out in more than a dozen UN resolutions
- don't attribute bush to being a liar when he can be explained as clumsy
- true, as is all war.
- it was the position of this gov't, as well as the coalition of the willing (however many dozens of signatories that was), the UN wasn't acting appropriately, nor was it expected to, given the resistance by the french, german, belgian, etc.
- what of the depleted U? there is no significant environmental or personal detriment done in the iraq theater from DU. sources: here, here, and here
- where exactly is iraqi oil flowing? which gas stations should one boycott to protest this "stolen oil"?
- which dictator from the u.s.? ahmed chalabi was pooh-poohed long ago.

 

[Changleen]

Shirl, just WRT to the chem and bio weapons, those things have a pretty short shelf life, kinda like yoghurt. America, France, the UK and Russia all sold Iraq these weapons for some time. We know what we sold and when. All of the stuff we sold would have been growing fungus by the time Bush started making noises. The real issue was their capability to produce them for themselves, which we basically knew they did not have.

 

[Changleen]

holy crap, dude.
- iraq surrendered its right to sovereignty for various reasons, all spelled out in more than a dozen UN resolutions
- don't attribute bush to being a liar when he can be explained as clumsy
- true, as is all war.
- it was the position of this gov't, as well as the coalition of the willing (however many dozens of signatories that was), the UN wasn't acting appropriately, nor was it expected to, given the resistance by the french, german, belgian, etc.
- what of the depleted U? there is no significant environmental or personal detriment done in the iraq theater from DU. sources: here, here, and here
- where exactly is iraqi oil flowing? which gas stations should one boycott to protest this "stolen oil"?
- which dictator from the u.s.? ahmed chalabi was pooh-poohed long ago.

OMG. No.

 

[$tinkle]

Shirl, just WRT to the chem and bio weapons, those things have a pretty short shelf life, kinda like yoghurt. America, France, the UK and Russia all sold Iraq these weapons for some time. We know what we sold and when. All of the stuff we sold would have been growing fungus by the time Bush started making noises. The real issue was their capability to produce them for themselves, which we basically knew they did not have.

i'm sitting 40 miles from 10's of thousands of tonnes of mustard gas (pueblo, colorado). lotta experts strongly disagree, as indicated by the fact they can't come to terms on how to start destroying it.

 

[$tinkle]

OMG. No.

that's just the tip; you want the whole thing, hippie?

 

[Changleen]

i'm sitting 40 miles from 10's of thousands of tonnes of mustard gas (pueblo, colorado). lotta experts strongly disagree, as indicated by the fact they can't come to terms on how to start destroying it.

OMG! You have WMD and are belicose and warlike! NZ will invade and destroy you.

 

[Changleen]

$tinkle, are you remotely serious about DU being 'OK'?

 

[Changleen]

Oh BTW I voted "Wrong":

Toll as high as 600,000, disputed Iraq study says
By Sabrina Tavernise and Donald G. McNeil Jr. The New York Times

Published: October 11, 2006
BAGHDAD A team of U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated that more than 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, the highest estimate ever for the toll of the war here.

The figure breaks down to about 15,000 violent deaths a month, a number that is quadruple the one for July given by Iraqi government hospitals and the morgue in Baghdad and published last month in a UN report on Iraq. That month was the highest reported for Iraqi civilian deaths since the U.S. invasion.

But it is an estimate and not a precise count, and researchers acknowledged a margin of sampling error that could make the true figure as low as 425,000 or as high as nearly 800,000.

President George W. Bush dismissed the findings even as he acknowledged that "the brutality of Iraq's enemies has been on full display in recent days," Bloomberg News reported. "I don't consider it a credible report; neither does General Casey and neither do Iraqi officials," Bush said, referring to General George Casey Jr., the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, when asked about the study at a White House news conference. The study's methodology is "pretty well discredited," he said.

The study is the second by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It uses samples of casualties from Iraqi households to extrapolate an overall figure of 601,027 Iraqis dead from violence from March 2003 to this July.

The findings of the previous study, published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, in 2004, had been criticized as high, in part because of its relatively narrow sampling of about 1,000 families, and because it carried a large margin of sampling error.

The new study is more representative, its researchers said, and the sampling is broader: It surveyed 1,849 Iraqi families in 47 different neighborhoods across Iraq. The selection of geographical areas in 18 regions across Iraq was based on population size, not on the level of violence, they said.

The study comes at a sensitive time for the Iraqi government, which is under U.S. pressure to take action against militias driving the sectarian killings.

In the past week of September, the government barred the central morgue in Baghdad and the Health Ministry - the two main sources of information for civilian deaths - from releasing figures. Now, only the government is allowed to release figures. It has not provided statistics for September, though a spokesman said Tuesday that it would.

The U.S. military has disputed the Iraqi figures, saying that they include natural deaths and deaths from ordinary crime, such as domestic violence.

But the U.S. military has not released figures of its own, giving only percentage comparisons. For example, it cited a 46 percent drop in the murder rate in Baghdad in August from July as evidence of the success of its recent sweeps. At a briefing on Monday, the military's spokesman declined to characterize the change for September.

The U.S. military has released rough counts of average numbers of Iraqis killed and wounded in a quarterly accounting report mandated by Congress. In the report, "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq," daily averages of dead and wounded Iraqi civilians, soldiers and the police rose from 26 a day in 2004 to almost 120 a day in August 2006.

Gunshots accounted for 56 percent of all violent deaths, the study said.

Donald G. McNeil Jr. reported from New York.


BAGHDAD A team of U.S. and Iraqi public health researchers has estimated that more than 600,000 civilians have died in violence across Iraq since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, the highest estimate ever for the toll of the war here.

The figure breaks down to about 15,000 violent deaths a month, a number that is quadruple the one for July given by Iraqi government hospitals and the morgue in Baghdad and published last month in a UN report on Iraq. That month was the highest reported for Iraqi civilian deaths since the U.S. invasion.

But it is an estimate and not a precise count, and researchers acknowledged a margin of sampling error that could make the true figure as low as 425,000 or as high as nearly 800,000.

President George W. Bush dismissed the findings even as he acknowledged that "the brutality of Iraq's enemies has been on full display in recent days," Bloomberg News reported. "I don't consider it a credible report; neither does General Casey and neither do Iraqi officials," Bush said, referring to General George Casey Jr., the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, when asked about the study at a White House news conference. The study's methodology is "pretty well discredited," he said.

The study is the second by researchers from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. It uses samples of casualties from Iraqi households to extrapolate an overall figure of 601,027 Iraqis dead from violence from March 2003 to this July.

The findings of the previous study, published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, in 2004, had been criticized as high, in part because of its relatively narrow sampling of about 1,000 families, and because it carried a large margin of sampling error.

The new study is more representative, its researchers said, and the sampling is broader: It surveyed 1,849 Iraqi families in 47 different neighborhoods across Iraq. The selection of geographical areas in 18 regions across Iraq was based on population size, not on the level of violence, they said.

The study comes at a sensitive time for the Iraqi government, which is under U.S. pressure to take action against militias driving the sectarian killings.

In the past week of September, the government barred the central morgue in Baghdad and the Health Ministry - the two main sources of information for civilian deaths - from releasing figures. Now, only the government is allowed to release figures. It has not provided statistics for September, though a spokesman said Tuesday that it would.

The U.S. military has disputed the Iraqi figures, saying that they include natural deaths and deaths from ordinary crime, such as domestic violence.

But the U.S. military has not released figures of its own, giving only percentage comparisons. For example, it cited a 46 percent drop in the murder rate in Baghdad in August from July as evidence of the success of its recent sweeps. At a briefing on Monday, the military's spokesman declined to characterize the change for September.

The U.S. military has released rough counts of average numbers of Iraqis killed and wounded in a quarterly accounting report mandated by Congress. In the report, "Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq," daily averages of dead and wounded Iraqi civilians, soldiers and the police rose from 26 a day in 2004 to almost 120 a day in August 2006.

Gunshots accounted for 56 percent of all violent deaths, the study said.

Donald G. McNeil Jr. reported from New York.

 

[$tinkle]

$tinkle, are you remotely serious about DU being 'OK'?

DU is no worse than 2nd-hand smoke queefed from a thai boy's ass.

gulf-war-syndrome is some half-life-baked scheme to claim disability in order to get the "disabled vet" license plates in order to get out of speeding tickets & HOV violations.

 

[Changleen]

Riiiiigghhhht. I'll get back to you on this shortly...

 

[renorider40]

right to remove him, but they did it the wrong way.

 

[$tinkle]

war brings out the inner-pussy in a lot of freedom haters.

lip-up.

 

[Changleen]

Would you let your daughter crawl around in a tank that had been hit by a DU shell? (Sharp edges aside)

 

[N8 v2.0]

war brings out the inner-pussy in a lot of freedom haters.

lip-up.

that's pure gold there....

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

So you voted "Right" then?

by that reasoning... killing a pesky mole in your backyard by gassing the city would be right. which is not.

 

[RenegadeRick]

war brings out the inner-pussy in a lot of freedom haters.

I think I must be an outer pussy, because I oppose war in pretty much every scenario except for repelling an invading army. In that case war is justified.
Does this mean the Iraqi insurgents are really freedom fighters? Could be...

So for your ad hominem remark to be accepted by me as truth, please expand your position. Please explain why being anti-war makes one a "freedom hater".

 

[psychobiker]

One right move done in the wrong way followed by countless wrong moves.

totally the wrong way