 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1... 12 13 14 15 16 ...18  Previous Next
|
 Why Conservatives Just Lovve McCain (Locked) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting sugarjoe: Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
I think you mean to direct that to Wikipedia. Those are the number they report. I did not edit their list.
Also in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_deaths
Thee table below summarizes the Iraq War casualty surveys.
Survey Iraqi deaths March 2003 to...
Iraqi Health Ministry survey 151,000 violent deaths out of 400,000 excess deaths due to the war. June 2006
Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths. June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. August 2007 Which is to say that nobody really knows how many there are, nor how many of those civilians were actually militia members and members of terrorist cells. Nor does it address specifics as to how many were actually due to collateral damage and how many were murdered by militia or al Queda sympathizers. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,694 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Snark: Quote:
Quoting Rifter:
Quote:
Good god, man, who do you think the UN is? And who do you think would have to enforce those UN mandates if not the US and Britain? I also don't think most of those other countries would appreciate your "nickel and dime" characterization much.
I think the UN is the UN Rifter. The UN chooses to enforce it's mandates, it's not a US/British property.
I have no problem with action being taken outside of the context of the UN. They're slow to act in many cases and not particularly effective. If there is a clear threat to our security we do not need to ask permission from anyone for action.
I simply find it somewhat hypocritical to claim the UN resolutions as a justification for action that the UN did not (and would not have) authorized.
Nickel and dime was perhaps not the best choice of words. I did not mean to diminish the contributions of any particular country, I was just talking about overall composition of forces. "Nickel and dime" is just on of the stock phrases I fall back on that I probably ought to look closer at the context before I use. The UN is not a sovereign entity separate from the rest of the world's nations. It is a member organization, the five permanent members of which are the US, Britain, France, Russia, and China. Everybody else is a bureaucrat that works under the mandate of those five nations. So, the UN goes whichever way those five nations go - or don't go as the case may be. Also, even if four of the five disagreed and decided to do nothing, and the US went and did it without them, the US is still upholding the 17 resolutions that were violated routinely by Saddam. Even though we went to war releatively unilaterally, we still adhered to the content of those UN resolutions, even if we didn't have the backing of the full UN. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964
Make America Great Again! |
| | Registered: June 3, 2007 | | Posts: 333 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Wrong again. You can argue all day long as to whether or not we should have gone to war, but after the fact of going to war, you get on the same page and go all out to win it, every time. By your logic, we'd be pulling out with the job unfinished, and that makes all the sacrifices made worthless. I respectfully disagree Rifter. What the "job" is has never been clearly defined. The sacrifices of those who went did accomplish what we orginally set out to do. There are no WMDs in Iraq. Hussein is dead and gone. Iraq is free to choose it's own destiny. The question is, will the war be a net benefit to the US? I don't think there's a clearly defined "win" in that sense no matter how we look at it. Hussein was evil, but his ambitions were local. Iraq was a stable, secular country that helped to contain Iran. In destablizing it we opened doors for terrorists and provided them with a powerful recruiting tool. In any case, the decision to leave Iraq will eventually be forced on us by the Iraqis themselves. They do not want us to remain there indefinately. I think the best we can hope for is a stable country that based on geography and common religion is closer to Iran philosophically than us. How much desire and ability they will have to combat terrorists within their borders is open to debate. I hope I'm wrong, but that's my feeling on the subject. And with that, I'm done with Iraq. We're going over things that everyone has pretty much gotten set in their own minds and further discussion will only cause bad feelings. It's simply too emotional for many of us. (Including myself here. A woman I care for very much is due to be deployed in January.) |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 |  Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Quoting sugarjoe:
Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
I think you mean to direct that to Wikipedia. Those are the number they report. I did not edit their list.
Also in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_deaths
Thee table below summarizes the Iraq War casualty surveys.
Survey Iraqi deaths March 2003 to...
Iraqi Health Ministry survey 151,000 violent deaths out of 400,000 excess deaths due to the war. June 2006
Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths. June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. August 2007
Which is to say that nobody really knows how many there are, nor how many of those civilians were actually militia members and members of terrorist cells. Nor does it address specifics as to how many were actually due to collateral damage and how many were murdered by militia or al Queda sympathizers. It doesn't matter, a dead person is a dead person. |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | sugarjoe,
So extending your logic I suppose that it doesn't matter that the IRA actually killed most of the victims during their reign of terror -- all those deaths are the fault of the British government for not giving in to their demands and having the audacity to fight back.......
Yes "a dead person is a dead person" but whether those dead were terrorists themselves and how many of the others were killed by them (as opposed to coalition forces) is absolutely relevant when you are considering who should be held accountable for the casualties.
Using your logic you might as well blame Britain for the victims killed by the Nazis during WWII.
It certainly "matters" to me and it should to you as well.
Brian |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Appeasement does not work, people. It never has and never will. The people in the UK should understand better than anyone since they begat one of the greatest appeasers of all-time, Neville Chamberlain. Appeasement only encourages the enemy whether you are talking about politics or atempts to stave off hostilities.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,494 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well todays news.. " Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska has been found guilty on all seven counts in his corruption trial." is One more Nail in the coffin of the 'McCain march' to the White House... His party is in sooo much trouble now,, there is No way the Republicans can take this .. ! Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...  | | | In the 60's, People took Acid to make the world Weird. Now the World is weird and People take Prozac to make it Normal.
Terry |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I know, Terry. And I have one sentence, no spin, no nothing, throw the bum out. He should have stepped down last spring.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | Yeah it's all those corrupt Republicans who keep marked bribery cash in their freezers.....oh wait that was a Democrat who is still in office -- Jefferson! Yeah it was that republican corrupt former Judge who was impeached for accepting bribes while on the bench.....oh wait that was a Democrat who is now a Congressman and nearly put in charge of a key committee - Hastings! Yeah it was that Republican who didn't pay any taxes on his vacation home rental income.....oh wait that was still sitting Democrat congressman - Rangel! This after their leader Comrade Pelosi vowed to run the "most ethical Congress in history"!! Oh by the way I live near the great Chicago where Democrats have run the city and county exclusively for decades and haven't stopped inventing new and varied ways of corruption. Tony Resko friend to many Democrats in Cook County (including Barack Obama) was also convicted on numerous fraud and corruption counts not to long ago. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news -- the corruption show is about to takeover the White House!  |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,494 |
| | Posted: | | | | | | | In the 60's, People took Acid to make the world Weird. Now the World is weird and People take Prozac to make it Normal.
Terry |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Rifter: Quote:
Quoting sugarjoe:
Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
I think you mean to direct that to Wikipedia. Those are the number they report. I did not edit their list.
Also in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraqi_deaths
Thee table below summarizes the Iraq War casualty surveys.
Survey Iraqi deaths March 2003 to...
Iraqi Health Ministry survey 151,000 violent deaths out of 400,000 excess deaths due to the war. June 2006
Lancet survey 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths. June 2006
Opinion Research Business survey 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. August 2007
Which is to say that nobody really knows how many there are, nor how many of those civilians were actually militia members and members of terrorist cells. Nor does it address specifics as to how many were actually due to collateral damage and how many were murdered by militia or al Queda sympathizers. There were no militia members, terrorist cells or Quaida sympathizers before the US invaded Iraq. And what does the term 'collateral damage' mean, innocent civilians? | | | | Last edited: by sugarjoe |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bbursiek: Quote:
sugarjoe,
So extending your logic I suppose that it doesn't matter that the IRA actually killed most of the victims during their reign of terror -- all those deaths are the fault of the British government for not giving in to their demands and having the audacity to fight back.......
Brian This is not extending my logic, this is simply a bad analogy. |
| | Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Posts: 262 |
| | Posted: | | | | sugarjoe, That is extending your logic whether you choose to admit it or not. Your position appears to be that all of the deaths in Iraq since the invasion can be attributed to the US/Coalition foces regardless of who actually killed them. The reality is that only a small fraction of those deaths were actually at the hands of the US and most of those were terrorists/insurgents who took up arms against the new government (a duly elected one at that). I prefer to blame the side actually carrying out the killings rather than the side trying to help the people by giving them a chance at a real government that is accountable to them for the first time in their lives. I guess you can't see the logic behind that either.... You seem to be the master of the pointless one liner - never offering anything more than snarky putdowns. If all you have to offer the discussion is silly one line putdowns then why participate? As a suggestion why is my analogy to the IRA a "bad" one? Why is a "dead person a dead person" when it comes to assigning responsibility for the tragic deaths in Iraq? Another example of a essentially pointless putdown: Quote:
There were no militia members, terrorist cells or Quaida sympathizers before the US invaded Iraq. And what does the term 'collateral damage' mean, innocent civilians? You are correct - there were only a brutal and murderous dictator, mass graves, gas attacks on civilains, torture and rapes galore by the dicators sadistic sons, and brutal mass murders of ethnic minorities. Then there was the economic rape of the country where all the wealth of the nation was funneled to Saddam's lavish palaces etc. This is without even mentioning the complete lack of civil rights, economic opportunity, and any sense of a responsible government. But you are right there were no terrorist cells, militia members, or Al Qaeda sympathizers. "Collateral Damage" as I am sure you know but since you express ignorance I will try to cure you of your ignorance. It is a common term used to refer to UNINTENTIONAL DEATHS that accompany military operations. See wikipedia: Quote:
Collateral damage is damage that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome.[1] The term originated in the U.S. military, but it has since expanded into broader use.
United States Department of Defense definition collateral damage — Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack. (Joint Publication 3-60) The key part of the definition is "unitended or incidental to the intended outcome". This is an important distinction because on the "insurgent" side there is no such thing as collateral damage since they INTEND to kill innocent civilians wheras we have such a term because our intent is to avoid or minimize civilian deaths. It should also be noted that most "collateral damage" can be attributed to our enemies hiding amongst the civilian population to try to shield themselves from attack and/or to ensure maximum collateral damage from our attacks. I hope you come out of this with a better understanding of both the term "collateral damage" and the situation in Iraq. You seem capable of understanding this so hopefully with your ignorance having been addressed you'' figure things out better. Glad to be of help! Brian | | | | Last edited: by bbursiek |
| | Registered: March 28, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,299 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bbursiek: Quote:
Quote:
There were no militia members, terrorist cells or Quaida sympathizers before the US invaded Iraq. And what does the term 'collateral damage' mean, innocent civilians?
You are correct - there were only a brutal and murderous dictator, mass graves, gas attacks on civilains, torture and rapes galore by the dicators sadistic sons, and brutal mass murders of ethnic minorities. Then there was the economic rape of the country where all the wealth of the nation was funneled to Saddam's lavish palaces etc. Are there any figures or estimates on how many people Saddam killed while in power? I'd be curious to see the number of people killed as a direct result of him being in power, compared to the number of people killed as a direct result of the U.S. invasion. KM | | | Tags, tags, bo bags, banana fana fo fags, mi my mo mags, TAGS!
Dolly's not alone. You can also clone profiles.
You've got questions? You've got answers? Take the DVD Profiler Wiki for a spin. |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Astra:
I'll dig and see what I can find but my memory is that the number exceeded a million.
Found this at Stanford university
Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein. "See http://www.gbn.org/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242 Here is an excerpt:":Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"
But such facts are not enough -- because for him the true question is whether civilians killed by the war are "unnecessary". I need to ask whether he thinks the civilian deaths were necessary or not. I clearly believe they were necessary to oust Saddam and save the lives he would have murdered, to free the children from prison, etc. -- in fact more necessary than the atomic bombs to force Japan's surrender If Mr. Crow is willing to accept Muslim fanatic terrorists with WMDs, or Muslim theocracy, rather than fight for Western/ Christian/ Capitalist/ Freedom, then indeed comparing death rates doesn't mean much".
Ronald Hilton - 4/25/03
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video | | | | Last edited: by Winston Smith |
| | Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 374 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting bbursiek: Quote:
I hope you come out of this with a better understanding of both the term "collateral damage" and the situation in Iraq. You seem capable of understanding this so hopefully with your ignorance having been addressed you'' figure things out better. Glad to be of help!
Brian Thank you for explaining the situation in Iraq to me Brian, now I know how things really are. |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->General: General Discussion |
Page:
1... 12 13 14 15 16 ...18 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |