Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
25,000 Civilians Killed In Iraq  
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1834 times:

I guess the Bush administration has some innocent blood on its hands, but hey, its for a good cause! WMD, 9/11, Saddam as a threat to world peace.

I guess, he has really won over the hearts and minds of relatives of those killed!

Nearly 25,000 civilians have been killed since the start of the Iraq war, according to a group that tracks the civilian death toll from the conflict.

The Iraq Body Count -- a London-based group comprising academics and human rights and anti-war activists -- said on Tuesday that 24,865 civilians had died between March 20, 2003 and March 19, 2005.

The group said 42,500 injuries were recorded as well.



http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/iraq.bodycount/index.html

85 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1821 times:

Quoting Dtwclipper (Thread starter):
I guess the Bush administration has some innocent blood on its hands, but hey, its for a good cause! WMD, 9/11, Saddam as a threat to world peace.

Nearly 25,000 civilians have been killed since the start of the Iraq war, according to a group that tracks the civilian death toll from the conflict.

THAT'S what I call terrorism!



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1814 times:

Better that 25K die over a period of years rather than millions more under Saddam, don't you think?

Or would you rather ignore the fact that more civilians died and would die under Saddam if he were still in power, and use this kind of information as propoganda against Bush?

Sadly, too many Americans are dumb enough to choose the latter.



-NWA742


User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1808 times:

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 2):
Sadly, too many Americans are dumb enough to choose the latter.

Rather than calling people names, and lowering yourself to juvenile tactics, why don't you respond like an adult.

These are facts buddy, don't look to see them on FOX!


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 55
Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 2):
Or would you rather ignore the fact that more civilians died and would die under Saddam if he were still in power, and use this kind of information as propoganda against Bush?

Not true. Saddam has been pretty much dormant for many many years. The "sins" he has committed to were from the past. Any Iraqi will tell you they were happier before the invasion with Saddam in power.

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 2):
Sadly, too many Americans are dumb enough to choose the latter.

Sadly, not enough are smart enough to realise that NWA742 is actually right and choose to believe the media.



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 3):
Rather than calling people names, and lowering yourself to juvenile tactics, why don't you respond like an adult.

These are facts buddy, don't look to see them on FOX!

I never called anybody in specific a name, I just called the Americans that ignore important facts (like I mentioned) dumb.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 3):
These are facts buddy


And when did I deny that?

I also posted facts, which are very relevant.




-NWA742


User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1798 times:

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 4):
The "sins" he has committed to were from the past. Any Iraqi will tell you they were happier before the invasion with Saddam in power.

Complete and utter bullshit, FlyAUA. Saddam's atrocities continued very nearly to the year he was cut from power.

They are still finding mass grave sites for crying out loud.

And no, not all Iraqis were happier under Saddam........are you relying on Al Jazeera for your information?

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 4):
Sadly, not enough are smart enough to realise that NWA742 is actually right and choose to believe the media.

I never said not to believe the media, I said not to ignore important facts that the media NEVER mentions.



-NWA742


User currently offlineDC10GUY From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 2685 posts, RR: 6
Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1797 times:

I'll bet the number of 25k is low ... Especially if you count American led attacks sense 1991 ... But I'm sure those poor Iraqis are happy about it. Its them evil liberal media outlets that always put negative spins on the deaths of women children etc ...


Next time try the old "dirty Sanchez" She'll love it !!!
User currently offlineMichaelJP From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1786 times:

Once again the pond is divided Big grin

Europeans including myself believe that Bush is a twat and cant do anything right and that he invaded Iraq purely for oil which if you deny really shows complete and utter ignorance.
Bush didnt invade Iraq to save the people...it was merely a front to get the oil. Watch Farenheit 9/11 people if it hasnt been banned in the US!

Whereas americans believe that Saddam was a naughty naughty boy and needed a good telling off from his mummy.Why did anyone vote for bush again in the first place?! Beats me!
Anyway...another 25k dead civilians....guess they can add those names to the "Dead Civilians killed by us" list.
If you wish to slain me for my comments...please feel free...however do take into account this is purely personal opinion Big grin

Mike


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1787 times:

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 6):
They are still finding mass grave sites for crying out loud.

Yes, from ages ago when he used to commit these crimes. Mass graves don't just disappear over the decades.

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 6):
And no, not all Iraqis were happier under Saddam........are you relying on Al Jazeera for your information?

No, from people I know who live(d) there. I don't trust the media anymore!



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1774 times:

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 4):
Sadly, not enough are smart enough to realise that NWA742 is actually right and choose to believe the media.

Why is it, that whenever a report comes out (other then those issued by the Bush Regime) are wrong, and the media is the bad guy?

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 2):
Or would you rather ignore the fact that more civilians died and would die under Saddam if he were still in power,

What business is it of the US...Did we stop the genocide in Dafour?

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 2):
this kind of information as propoganda against Bush?

It's not propoganda...it's a fact.

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 6):
I said not to ignore important facts that the media NEVER mentions.

Like what?


User currently offlineDan2002 From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 2055 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 1773 times:

Quoting MichaelJP (Reply 8):

Europeans including myself believe that Bush is a twat and cant do anything right and that he invaded Iraq purely for oil which if you deny really shows complete and utter ignorance.
Bush didnt invade Iraq to save the people...it was merely a front to get the oil. Watch Farenheit 9/11 people if it hasnt been banned in the US!

Europeans arent the only ones that think Bush is a twat. Heh. Twat. Bush. Heh.
But I wouldnt go as far as to say F9/11 is a good source of information, even for us left wing nutjobs
But you know it makes great television watching the world end.

-Dan

[Edited 2005-07-20 00:37:36]


A guy asks 'What's Punk?'. I kick over a trash can and its punk. He knocks over a trash can and its trendy.
User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1768 times:

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 9):
Yes, from ages ago when he used to commit these crimes. Mass graves don't just disappear over the decades

You're talking about the ones that were unearthed several years ago. The majority of those mass graves were bodies of people killed by Saddam from the 80s through the early 90s. That's correct.


But, I'm talking about ones discovered since his regime was ended. Since then, over the past couple of years, they've unearthed 270 more mass grave sites, and discovered over 400,000 bodies.

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/pressreleases/20040224_mass_graves.html

You say Saddam hasn't commited atrocites in ages? What about the countless public executions? Killing anybody who didn't vote for him, killing the families of those people who lashed out against him.

Well, those bodies have to go somewhere, and they weren't buried in public cemeteries.



You still say Saddam hasn't commited atrocities in ages? Are you out of your mind? He commited them right up until he was caught!




-NWA742



[Edited 2005-07-20 00:46:49]

User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1758 times:

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 10):
Why is it, that whenever a report comes out (other then those issued by the Bush Regime) are wrong, and the media is the bad guy?

Dtwclipper, are you having problems reading? Read what I said. I NEVER said the media was wrong in this case. Not once. I said that the media LEAVES OUT OTHER FACTS. That's of course because they want to promote their bias.

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 10):
It's not propoganda...it's a fact.

When only one side of a story is presented, and when relevant facts are purposely ignored in order to promote a bias or opinion, that is propoganda.

Quote:
Like what?

You've got to be kidding, read my first post. Again, you need to actually before you respond to people's posts.



-NWA742


User currently offline4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 3047 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1753 times:

I don't watch Fox, and never have. And I will stay out of this tired old pissing match.
But I will mention that I find it almost humorous that the same group that can't finish a sentence without reflexively accusing the other side of being brainwashed by the Fox propaganda, also refers to Fahrenheit 911 in an almost Biblical tone; as if were an unbiased presentation of facts.
(Again, I hate Bush. Would concur with the "twat" label for him.)



Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offlineMichaelJP From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

You say Saddam commits genocide etc...ok...we say that Bush's best friend is some Saudi oil guy that does things in Iraq namely to do with oil.
Hmm...the Saudi oil guy gets money...Bush's friend..does deals with american money...hmm...Bush gets money.
Quote from Bush: "I have an idea...we'll invade "Eye"raq so's that ma good friend can get loadsa oil and then we can all share the profits and we'll blame it on WMD and genocide with made up reports"

Ever heard of the CIA creating foney news stories? No? Wow...thats new!

Mike


User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1748 times:

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 13):
Dtwclipper, are you having problems reading? Read what I said. I NEVER said the media was wrong in this case. Not once. I said that the media LEAVES OUT OTHER FACTS. That's of course because they want to promote their bias.

First of all I wasn't quoting you. Secondly, what did they leave out. This was a report on those civilans killed.

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 13):
When only one side of a story is presented, and when relevant facts are purposely ignored in order to promote a bias or opinion, that is propoganda.

No, when a story is not given the spin of the Bush administration its propoganda and biased.


User currently offlineFlyAUA From Austria, joined May 2005, 4604 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1745 times:

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 12):
You say Saddam hasn't commited atrocites in ages? What about the countless public executions? Killing anybody who didn't vote for him, killing the families of those people who lashed out against him.

I didn't say he's a good guy. I said STILL, Iraq was better off before the invasion. And if you deny that all you have to do is have a look at what's going on there yourself and what has happened over the last 2/3 years. If you don't see that, you're deluded!

Anyways, if you want to believe that you saved Iraq, and that one day it will be liberated from the horrible place it was 5 years ago... be my guest  sarcastic 

Goodnight peeps, it's past bedtime for me  cloudnine 



Not drinking, also isn't a solution!
User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1736 times:

Quoting Dtwclipper (Reply 16):
Secondly, what did they leave out. This was a report on those civilans killed.

The article says that these are anti-war activists throwing out these numbers. They have a bias, and they are using these numbers as propoganda, because they leave out the other side of the story. They left out the fact that a lot more civilians would be dead if Saddam was still in power.





-NWA742


User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1733 times:

Quoting FlyAUA (Reply 17):
. I said STILL, Iraq was better off before the invasion. And if you deny that all you have to do is have a look at what's going on there yourself and what has happened over the last 2/3 years. If you don't see that, you're deluded!

Well if that's your opinion, so be it. Keep relying on media outlets which will only tell you that everything is bad in Iraq, and that nothing positive has come as a result of the war.

That's the ignorant, deluded way to judge things.



-NWA742


User currently offlineMarco From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2000, 4169 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1730 times:

Not true. Saddam has been pretty much dormant for many many years. The "sins" he has committed to were from the past. Any Iraqi will tell you they were happier before the invasion with Saddam in power.

Including this Iraqi. Saddam was no angel, but the USA has no right to enter a sovreign country and impose a new "government" - which by the way consists of a bunch of (ex)terrorists (jaafari and his pathetic Dawa party) and con artists (chalabi and his thugs).



Proud to be an Assyrian!
User currently offlineDtwclipper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

Quoting NWA742 (Reply 18):
The article says that these are anti-war activists throwing out these numbers. They have a bias, and they are using these numbers as propoganda, because they leave out the other side of the story. They left out the fact that a lot more civilians would be dead if Saddam was still in power.

Survey confirms U.N. findings
The death toll almost mirrors a U.N.-funded survey conducted last year, which found some 24,000 conflict-related deaths since the U.S.-led invasion.


Oh, but wait, the UN is an evil organization just waiting to take away our sovereignty!


www.msnbc.com

[Edited 2005-07-20 01:19:32]

User currently offlineN229NW From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 1972 posts, RR: 31
Reply 22, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1721 times:

OK...let me start out by saying that I was and am completely against this war on moral and practical grounds, given our history in the region and so many other factors which I won't even go into here. And I certainly believe that whatever Bush personally believed about the reasons for going into Iraq, his advisors and the brains behind the invasion had quite cynical reasons.

But that's as may be. I'd like to raise a couple of serious questions. The left can be as simplistic and naive as the right about these things, and some of the things I heard back at protests I went to or see from the anti-war movement now leave a sour taste in my mouth. It seems to me arguments about this war (on a.net and elsewhere) always go back and forth bewteen the same intransigent positions which are largely based on "what if" arguments. Here are a couple of thoughts about these claims:

Question 1: Would Saddam have killed more people or fewer than the US occupation.
My thoughts: Arguments about how many innocent Iraqis we have killed are some of the most visceral but least helpful ways to approach the questions at hand. There seems little way to answer them honestly; it is really a hypothetical guess. Saddam was a brutal dictator who did indeed order the slaughter of enormous numbers of people.

What I do know is that now the blood is on OUR hands directly. And--laying aside the moral questions about whether the invasion will ultimately have saved or cost lives--on the practical side, we will certainly be blamed and resented by many in Iraq who have lost family members directly because of us or at our hands, and by many in the entire region, so this cannot have made the US safer. Furthermore, we are partly responsible for the earlier deaths under Hussein, since we propped him up in the Iran-Iraq war and even gave him the chemical weapons he used on the Iranians and Kurds; and then of course there is the sanctions issue. To me it is all the more obvious that due to this past we will be resented when many more die at our hands now. Time and diplomatic methods could have been used much better than a rush to war, bullying our allies, and breaking international laws...

Finally, many of the dead that the pro-war boosters count among Saddam's "innocent victims" were the same religious radicals we now believe we can just call "terrorists" and consider their deaths good. So this is also a disingenuous argument...

Still, the fundamental question of whether the invasion will save or cost lives is not simple, and I'm not sure in the abstract it can be used to make a clear argument.

Querstion 2: Are Iraqi's "better off" now or before?
My thoughts: Personally, I can't imagine how the average Iraqi can be better off right now, since we have more or less destroyed the entire infrastructure of the country. I believe too that under Saddam most citizens (but then of course there were the Kurds etc.) could count on having basic services and personal security within the limits of a brutal autocratic dictatoriship. That is, if they "behaved well," they would be safe and could go about their daily lives. If they were free thinkers or radical Islamists they would be killed. Now, no one has any security and people are being killed much more indiscriminately. Probably the present situation is worse in most people's experience.

I'd like to be wrong about all this, and to find out that in the long run things do improve for the average citizen. I have no doubt that there are some Iraqis who geniuinely are grateful for the invasion. I believe, though, from the best picture I can put together from many different sources that they are strongly in the minority...and that many people enpountered by individual US soldiers who are in the short term grateful for their help in specific personal situations also blame the invasion for their problems in the bigger picture.

But...again, I think that we should admit that even here there is room for uncertainty. It is not as though there clear controlled polling can be done throughout the whole country that really shows what "the average Iraqi" is thinking. Polls are done with limited controls or anecdotally, and in limited regions, and have wildly divergent results depending on who is doing the polling and who is asked.

Most of us form our opinions without being on the ground in Iraq, and those who do personally observe events there report back very different sides of the story depending on everything from their biases in advance to what they chance to see to when they are there and how much ground they cover.

I guess what I'm saying is I wish the left and the right would carry this discussion to a level behind the same soundbites and admit that there is a lot of uncertainty (about events, intentions behind actions, etc.). It is too late to undo the invasion, much as I wish this were not so. What can we do now to make things better?

[Edited 2005-07-20 01:10:49]


It's people like you what cause unrest!
User currently offlineDan-Air From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 614 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1698 times:

Well if that's your opinion, so be it. Keep relying on media outlets which will only tell you that everything is bad in Iraq, and that nothing positive has come as a result of the war.

That's the ignorant, deluded way to judge things.


How about reminding us why we are in Iraq? Why do we have 140,000 regular army and National Guard troops there? To build frikkin' schools? While the Bush-sanctioned "government" is cozying up to the other bastion of democracy and liberty in the region - IRAN???!!!!

Give me a break with your pathetic "propoganda" (do me a favor and google that word will ya?). Iraq is a bust. We're just makin' more terrorists, and it WILL come back to haunt this country. And the great majority of Saddam's victims were killed on Reagan and Bush I's watch - while they sat back and did nothing (other than provide him with chemical weapons, that is).


User currently offlineBaylorAirBear From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2913 posts, RR: 49
Reply 24, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 1696 times:

Here's how it was explained to me: About 25,000 civilians killed. The terrorists/extremists/whatever are considered civilians in this survey also, because they do not belong to an organized military or organization. So, accounting for all of those killed that were actually the enemy, you get a dramatically lower and much more realistic number of civilian deaths. Including the terrorists/extremists/whatever in this survey allows the publisher a much more dramatic result to display. One could argue that he is a democrat using this against republicans and/or the war effort. Respond politely please.

BaylorAirBear



I'm just skipping stones...
25 SlamClick : Some points for you to consider: 1. You copied and pasted this text: "The Iraq Body Count -- a London-based group comprising academics and human right
26 Post contains images BaylorAirBear : Well, I barely beat SlamClick. You can consider my post a paraphrase. BaylorAirBear
27 Post contains links KLMA330 : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4692881.stm A view from someone who's been there... if you the time, very interesting article. B
28 Dtwclipper : Also the same figure provided by the UN. I believe that the White House is indeed guilty of creating this mess, lying to its own people, and not crea
29 N229NW : We did start this war and are hence we are the reason why the other insuregents and terrorists in Iraq exist at this moment. However, as I stated in
30 SlamClick : Well, I did ask several questions, which I beleived to be reasonable ones, to which you have not responded. edit: This is addressed to the thread star
31 N229NW : Who? I assume you are addressing dtwclipper. If you mean me, I believe that I addressed many of your points about playing the numbers game before you
32 SlamClick : That better?
33 SlamClick : Hardly impartial either. My point was that in accepting figures from a group that is obviously biased (whether it is the Pentagon or anti-war activis
34 Post contains links and images Springbok747 : Oh geez..more of Michael Moore's crap I think 25k is a pretty low number...considering the amount of attacks occuring in Iraq everyday. But if the ci
35 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Both your comments here are pure horseshit. And taking to word of Anti-War activists is an absurdity in and of itself. Show me how many civilians hav
36 SlamClick : Funny! I thought the UN was a bunch of people with no real marketable skills who'd do ANYTHING to stay in (evil empire) New York rather than go home
37 Dtwclipper : All of the political arguments go back and forth to no end. The left trusts the New York Times and the established media. The right says its all a pac
38 Psa53 : Then how come these groups haven't taken a body count on how many the terrorists have killed in US,Europe and Asia and taking it to the streets in pr
39 DC10GUY : The body count really doesn't matter, Oil prices are at record highs and for that we say ....MISSION ACCOMPLISHED !!!!!
40 PWM2TXLHopper : It's your right to believe this if you choose, but when I hear people say that, and sincerely believe it, I can hardly keep a straight face! Its true
41 B744F : Don't forget that America and the CIA were actively supporting Saddam during those events. That means nothing, the point is GWB was trying to tie al
42 PWM2TXLHopper : Its only a lie when the person telling it honestly knows that what they are saying is false. If somebody sincerely believes in what they are saying, t
43 Psa53 : Also,the reason I didn't vote Kerry,the Democratic party line was,"Bush mislead and lied about Iraq on the WMD's." But Clinton did bomb Baghdad,insis
44 Post contains images Northwest717 : People, this was a bad war. It is that simple. It was a war for oil. Those of you that refuse to accept that, just look at the Rwandan and Sudanese ge
45 Psa53 : So,why don't these people who say they care about life,who would protest in a heartbeat about the war,not protest and take it to the street on the ge
46 Solarix : "Speaking to CNN producer Ayman Mohyeldin Tuesday in his apartment in the upper-middle-class Cairo suburb of Giza, Mohamed el-Amir said he would like
47 Falcon84 : I'm not even going to argue with the blind ones on here who say "well, Saddam did....". Two wrongs don't make a right, guys. We were wrong to invade a
48 Post contains images PWM2TXLHopper : Well things dont happen overnight Northwest717. I think even two years is a relatively short amount of time to see the final outcome of the situation
49 PWM2TXLHopper : We had thirteen of them. Saddam ignored 13 UN resolutions over 13 years. Legally, he could have been invaded after the first one of those. Simple as
50 Psa53 : That's why I fear the media perhaps more then the governments that they accuse of censorship and witch hunts. Not once during the election,did the me
51 Post contains images Northwest717 : Too many. And nothing was done. Why wasn't anything done when Saddam WAS committing acts of genocide? Why only recently, when things had calmed down?
52 PWM2TXLHopper : Nothing was done when Saddam was commiting those acts of genocide because good ole' Slick Willy Clinton was in office. Probably for the same reason h
53 Post contains links and images Northwest717 : http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/kurdish/htdocs/his/Khaledtext.html "he Kurdish genocide of 1987-1989" Check again toots. -Tim
54 Post contains images Northwest717 : OK, that WAS a huge mistake. I will admit that. But it is still irrelivant to the 2003-? Iraqi War. -Tim
55 PWM2TXLHopper : Blow the hell out of Innocent civilians huh? Collateral damage is a tragedy of war that the U.S. takes great steps to limit. That's one reason why we
56 PWM2TXLHopper : "[quote=Northwest717,reply=53]"he Kurdish genocide of 1987-1989" Check again toots. -Tim [Sad] Not really. There was mass killings of the Kurds and th
57 PWM2TXLHopper : [quote=Northwest717,reply=54]OK, that WAS a huge mistake. I will admit that. But it is still irrelevant to the 2003-? Iraqi War. -Tim [Sad] It's not,
58 Post contains images Northwest717 : Yes, it is partially irrelivant. Look at the topic. I don't see what the previous administration not taking Osama from Saddam has to do with our murd
59 SlamClick : Murder is a word with specific meaning. It is actionable in court. Your use of the word is utterly incorrect. The "25000" include enemy combatants wh
60 Post contains images Northwest717 : I'm aware of that. MURDER = The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. Well, this war was practically illegal
61 Falcon84 : Please, Mr. Whoeveryouare. I'm not supremely stupid and dumb. You don't invade a nation unless they threaten you, offer threats to you, or actually i
62 SlamClick : So then you are saying that it was legal, right? Now there's an authority for you. So is rape, so is skimming and pocketing aid money. Where is the U
63 Daedaeg : You're pulling crap out of your ass as usual. Polls in Iraq show other wise. Of course most Iraqi's don't want a foreign body in their country, but m
64 Falcon84 : Polls are showing that for one reason, Daedaeg-because there's an occupying force in their country, and they really don't want to piss us off. Remembe
65 Tbar220 : NWA, From your link: "Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two de
66 Tbar220 : Look at my above post. If there have been 25,000 dead in the occupation (and I believe this is an underestimation), that's about 12,500 a year. That
67 N229NW : Daedag: As per my point above, different polls show different things. There are no proper controls on these polls. Also, it is very easy to distort v
68 SlamClick : yes In their statistics there is no category for such people. Therefore they are included in the 25,000. Else these people are deliberately supressin
69 Post contains images Northwest717 : Uh.......No. I didn't vote for him. Well looky here, SlamClick is trying to psych me out with "big words". Can you please show me that admission? -Ti
70 SlamClick : Academics are famously left-leaning. They can afford to be liberals, they don't actually have to produce anything useful. Hell, Ward Churchill works
71 Tbar220 : So you don't have proof for it? All your talk is exactly what you're accusing that group of doing. You're making unbased claims and haven't presented
72 Post contains images N229NW : How about turning that around and noting that academics who specifically study history, war, nationalism, etc. are actually pretty well-placed (maybe
73 SlamClick : Same number of letters, three fewer characters than your username. Here is a four letter word: fool
74 N229NW : Only to a very small extent. There are plenty of real human rights violations without anyone needing to make anything up...
75 Daedaeg : Well if this is the case, then one can surmise that there is absolutely no way of knowing what the average Iraqi thinks about coalition forces in Ira
76 B744F : No, what they and the rest of the middle east want, is for the US to stop getting involved in everyones business that has oil in the ground
77 777236ER : Just why was Iraq invaded? It certainly didn't have WMD and wasn't a threat in the slightest to the Allies. Terrorism around the world has increased b
78 Post contains images Northwest717 : Dude, look at yourself. And you are calling me the fool? -Tim
79 PWM2TXLHopper : My name is Adam, but I have a friend named Mr. Whoeveryouare I could introduce you too. Unfortunately you wont have much opportunity to pick apart my
80 Post contains images Falcon84 : Fine with me. People who think for themselves are left-leaning. It proves what I've said-many on the right (and their knee-jerk one-liners about Bush
81 787 : "The Iraq Body Count -- a London-based group comprised of academics, human rights and anti-war activists -- said on Tuesday that 24,865 civilians had
82 BaylorAirBear : Blame nobody. I could go back to the beginning of time with shoulda/coulda/woulda, but it won't change anything. Accountability is important, but in
83 Cairo : But, wait, I guess these dead civilians aren't part of the 'culture of life' Bush advertises? President Bush told thousands...yesterday that his admi
84 Post contains links Cairo : Well, for those of us who don't confuse our opinion with facts, we have found that actually asking 'any Iraqi' reveals they are happier after the war
85 787 : Great to see these polls. Things are not as they seem as they are often said by the "experts" on here. Frankly, this thread has been quiet since some
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Over 100,000 Civilian Deaths In Iraq posted Thu Oct 28 2004 22:29:13 by FLYYUL
Several US Personel Killed In Iraq. posted Wed Mar 31 2004 16:15:37 by Galaxy5
Michael Kelly, Journalist Killed In Iraq War: posted Fri Apr 4 2003 21:09:01 by Jaysit
500 000+ Dead In Iraq posted Wed Oct 11 2006 23:06:39 by Greasespot
262 Mass Graves Found In Iraq (1,000,000+ Victims) posted Wed Sep 8 2004 01:27:15 by B757300
U.S. Death Toll In Iraq Passes 1,000 posted Wed Sep 8 2004 00:55:18 by Dtwclipper
U.S. Abrams Tank "killed" With A Railgun In Iraq posted Sun Mar 28 2004 14:37:51 by Zak
Have We Reached True Civil War In Iraq? posted Fri Nov 24 2006 20:36:10 by Falcon84
UH60FtRucker's 10 Point Plan To Win In Iraq posted Sat Nov 11 2006 18:28:06 by UH60FtRucker
Suicide Bobming In Iraq-at Least 17 Dead posted Tue Nov 7 2006 21:59:14 by Speedbird747BA