A chronicle: Media question honesty of Bush administration

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
The latest figures on 9/11 have been lowered to around 2,700 as the 'missng' have been located.

Iraq toll will exceed 6,000 easily - even if the Iraqi Army losses are excluded.
But you can't forget that they did live there, and were citizens before becoming conscripts.

This country of 26 Million population has lost over 3 million of their people in wars since 1980.
a 3:26 ratio of loss is over 11% - that would be like our country losing 30 million.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
"...attack them and beat them into the dirt in three weeks without so much as a chemical or germ or nuclear release, and turn around and still say they were an immediate and imminent threat to us."

IMO, it's because they were instantly beat into the dirt that they didn't have a chance to use those weapons. Given what a lying, murderous POS Hussein was, I'm glad we didn't take any chances on letting him attack first. He had ample opportunity to give it up. No sympathy here.


I did supply a link and I'm surprised the Iraqi civilian death toll was even as high as 2,000. Where the hell does this 6K number come from? Link?

In December 2002 the Total Deaths from the WTC Attack was revised to 2,792.
 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
6k number is a projection as:

1) Hospitals are full of people that have been injured - and some are still dying.
2) They haven't dug out the rubble - yet.
3) We are not even trying to count Iraqi Civilians.
4) People are still being shot.
5) We are going to be there for quite a while longer.
6) More are going to die - on both sides.

Check back in a couple years when the details are know.
 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
"Iraq toll will exceed 6,000 easily..."

That's fvcking ludicrous and you've got NOTHING to back it up. Figures...
rolleye.gif
 

mastertech01

Moderator Emeritus Elite Member
Nov 13, 1999
11,875
282
126
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
6k number is a projection as:

1) Hospitals are full of people that have been injured - and some are still dying.
2) They haven't dug out the rubble - yet.
3) We are not even trying to count Iraqi Civilians.
4) People are still being shot.
5) We are going to be there for quite a while longer.
6) More are going to die - on both sides.

Check back in a couple years when the details are know.

I wonder how many tens of thousands of shallow graves they still have to find and uncover from the regime?

 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
6k number is a projection as:

1) Hospitals are full of people that have been injured - and some are still dying.
2) They haven't dug out the rubble - yet.
3) We are not even trying to count Iraqi Civilians.
4) People are still being shot.
5) We are going to be there for quite a while longer.
6) More are going to die - on both sides.

Check back in a couple years when the details are know.



Tell my fortune next! :p Is that how many are going to die, or how many you want to die so that this looks bad for Bush. Give me a break. Are there any MORE deaths you want to blame on him? Don't hold back...
 

Yossarian

Lifer
Dec 26, 2000
18,010
1
81
Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
6k number is a projection as:

1) Hospitals are full of people that have been injured - and some are still dying.
2) They haven't dug out the rubble - yet.
3) We are not even trying to count Iraqi Civilians.
4) People are still being shot.
5) We are going to be there for quite a while longer.
6) More are going to die - on both sides.

Check back in a couple years when the details are know.



Tell my fortune next! :p Is that how many are going to die, or how many you want to die so that this looks bad for Bush. Give me a break. Are there any MORE deaths you want to blame on him? Don't hold back...


Hey why not? Bush supporters are fortune telling that WMD will be found sooner or later, many believe that Saddam was responsible for the 2700+ killed at the WTC/Pentagon... unfounded speculation is rampant.
 

ConclamoLudus

Senior member
Jan 16, 2003
572
0
0
I can't think for myself because I disagree with you silly. I don't think the numbers will be nearly that high, and even if they are I don't blame Bush for a single one. Saddam had plenty of chances of resolving this peacefully. I blame him. At least that's what I'm told to think...I think...:)
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: mastertech01
And by what measure will they guage their ethics and honesty... the Clinton Administration? Rant on!
Two wrongs simply do not make a right. You cannot justify GW's wrongs by Clinton's wrongs. You cannot justify America's wrongs by claiming Saddam's wrongs. To use YET ANOTHER proverb, the ends do not justify the means. To say that we killed less Iraqis than Americans were killed on 9/11 only says that we are slightly less of murderers than those terrorists responsible for 9/11, but murderers nonetheless. Speak for yourself please (I won't even get into the questionability and lack of proof of Iraqi involvement in 9/11).
The fact is: GW lied to us about WMD in order to acheive his goals in Iraq, as I knew he was he doing at the time. You fanboys with your pussy excuses and misguided rallying cannot change that, no excuse can be sufficient. Iraq NEVER presented a threat to the security of the US. While upsetting, this is not the real issue. What should be bothering everyone is, if GW lied to us about the WMD, what was the REAL REASON for attacking Iraq? That is what I want to know.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,943
6,796
126
IMO, it's because they were instantly beat into the dirt that they didn't have a chance to use those weapons. Given what a lying, murderous POS Hussein was, I'm glad we didn't take any chances on letting him attack first. He had ample opportunity to give it up. No sympathy here.
-------------------
Hehe, yup we got him before he could become an immediate threat..... Oh wait!
 
Oct 16, 1999
10,490
4
0
if GW lied to us about the WMD, what was the REAL REASON for attacking Iraq? That is what I want to know.

Isreali national security (I'd buy an imenent threat claim from them)
So we can move military bases out of Saudi Arabia and into Iraq (sort of strange since US military pesence in SA was one of OBL's main gripes)
To send a message to other 'terrorist' states
You can get a lot more reason's by reading the stuff here:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

I really don't think any of those reasons justify this war (or that most of the ones on the linked site are even valid). They may turn out to down the road, but as it stands now I'm a little doubtful. But with that being said, I think the only justification we needed was the the fact that Saddam was not complying with the cease-fire that brought the last war to an end. We have to mean what we say, and I'm glad Bush is setting that precedent as far as other countries are concerned, but I loathe the man for not practing that on the homefront.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,861
6,396
126
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Ornery
Hussein dicked the UN around for ten years. We should have crushed his sorry ass at least five years earlier. Disarming him was reason enough, but from funding terrorists to direct Iraq-Al Qaida Links this POS was allowed to live years longer than he should have been.


2600 is a conservative estimate from what I hear. If it is accurate your still not counting the Iraqi soldiers.

As if comparing body counts would justify the war in the first place.

Yup, let's not forget the most important part of this arguement though, what the Hell does Iraq have to do with 9/11?
 

flavio

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,823
1
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: flavio
Originally posted by: Ornery
Hussein dicked the UN around for ten years. We should have crushed his sorry ass at least five years earlier. Disarming him was reason enough, but from funding terrorists to direct Iraq-Al Qaida Links this POS was allowed to live years longer than he should have been.


2600 is a conservative estimate from what I hear. If it is accurate your still not counting the Iraqi soldiers.

As if comparing body counts would justify the war in the first place.

Yup, let's not forget the most important part of this arguement though, what the Hell does Iraq have to do with 9/11?

It's just something to make people feel good about killing thousands of Iraqis. Apparently for some people the rational is 9/11 gave us an excuse to kill whomever we please....whether they were involved or not.

 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Many have derided Powell on information given to the UN as evidence of Al-Queda links. He claimed they were operating a terrorist camp in the north and teaching WMD methods. That camp was right where we claimed, complete with WMD recipes and dispersion manuals. Powelll claimed a member of Al-Queda was in Baghdad recieving medical care, his links came from Jordan and he was affiliated with a group that operated openly in western Baghdad. He is now in custody. So far we have multiple admissions by surrendered Iraq scientists and Govt. figures that the stockpiles of WMD were destroyed only months before the war. Nothing would make me happier than to find out THAT was true. I understand some of the information that was presented was forged, but "intelligence" is often a murky pool of truth at it's best.

I wouldn't doubt there were and are other ulterior motives, but all that have been expressed publicly were legitimate.
 

Squisher

Lifer
Aug 17, 2000
21,204
66
91
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
IMO, it's because they were instantly beat into the dirt that they didn't have a chance to use those weapons. Given what a lying, murderous POS Hussein was, I'm glad we didn't take any chances on letting him attack first. He had ample opportunity to give it up. No sympathy here.
-------------------
Hehe, yup we got him before he could become an immediate threat..... Oh wait!

You don't think an immediate threat can be beaten before you feel any of that threat's effects?

Not a very good argument, Sir Moon.




 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Many have derided Powell on information given to the UN as evidence of Al-Queda links. He claimed they were operating a terrorist camp in the north and teaching WMD methods. That camp was right where we claimed, complete with WMD recipes and dispersion manuals. Powelll claimed a member of Al-Queda was in Baghdad recieving medical care, his links came from Jordan and he was affiliated with a group that operated openly in western Baghdad. He is now in custody. So far we have multiple admissions by surrendered Iraq scientists and Govt. figures that the stockpiles of WMD were destroyed only months before the war. Nothing would make me happier than to find out THAT was true. I understand some of the information that was presented was forged, but "intelligence" is often a murky pool of truth at it's best.

I wouldn't doubt there were and are other ulterior motives, but all that have been expressed publicly were legitimate.

You make three specific claims. Can you offer any links to validate them? As I remember it, all three claims have since proven to be either wrong or greatly distorted.

I'll offer this one example, from the L.A. Times article above, re. the terrorist camp:
The only significant link between Al Qaeda and Hussein centered on the Ansar al Islam bases in the Kurdish area outside of Hussein's control. That's the "poison factory" offered by Colin Powell in his U.N. speech to connect Hussein with international terror. But an exhaustive investigation by the Los Angeles Times of witnesses and material found in the area "produced no strong evidence of connections to Baghdad and indicated that Ansar was not a sophisticated terrorist organization." Moreover, the purpose of this camp was to foster a holy war of religious fanatics who branded Hussein as "an infidel tyrant" and refused to fight under the "infidel flag" of his hated secular regime.
That's not quite the same.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Is this the same LA Times who took it upon themselves to merge 2 photos to get the desried effect of a USsoldier pointing his weapon at unarmed civilains? Ever think they had a liberal agenda? Why didn't they report the WMD recipes found there and the dipersion manuals? Was the camp there or not? I NEVER suggested above that camp was linked directly to Baghdad, maybe you should read a little more closely.

All 3 of those are true and have been linked EXTENSIVELY on here, there is a thread on the surrender of the Iraqi scientist who not only claimed the Govt was courting al-Queeda, he also claimed they started shifting WMD to syria in the mid 1990's, also that he worked in the program and amde WMD himself, then he led us to stockpiles of buried precursor chemicals that could make such WMD . He has not been the only one to have also claimed MANY were destroyed ONLY months before the war.

N.Y. Times: Iraqi Biological Weapons Scientist Admits He Lied To U.N. Inspectors

in 1992, when international inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission, or Unscom,
were arriving to ensure that Iraqi officials were complying with their country's pledge to give up chemical,
germ and nuclear weapons. He said military officials had asked him to tell inspectors that he was the head
of a single-cell protein facility. The plant, in fact, had made botulinum toxin and anthrax. . . . His student's legacy is well puiblicized as well, SHE is responsible for most of the WMD the UN could never account for.

The Al-Queda member Powell used as an exampleto the Un NOW in US custody?

Senior Bush administration officials Tuesday said a member of an al Qaeda-affiliated terror group operating in Iraq has been captured by U.S. forces

"Sources said the individual is a member of a group operating in western Baghdad under the leadership of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, a Jordanian believed by the United States to have been the mastermind behind the assassination of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman last October.

Zarqawi was said to have received medical treatment in Baghdad in May and June of 2002 after being wounded in Afghanistan during the war. His leg was amputated, U.S. officials say, by a surgeon in Iraq.

Before the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed to Zarqawi's al Qaeda-affiliated group that he said was operating inside Baghdad, as evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.

Powell told the U.N. Security Council in early February that after al Qaeda and the Taliban were ousted from Afghanistan, Zarqawi established a camp in northeastern Iraq to train terrorists in using explosives and poisons. "

There was also one arrested along with 5 Baath party members planning on blowing up the most holy mosque in Iraq, that pilgirmage almost did not happen.

That enough for you?

Wait a sec, you mean he was recieving aid from the Iraqi Govt. in Baghdad no less AND he helped set up that terrorist camp? No link, looks like I was wrong, I guess that is a pretty direct link, AL-Queda member flees Afghanistan, stops in home base (Baghdad), gets some help from Saddam's doctors and then goes upo norht to open a new terror camp.
 

Yossarian

Lifer
Dec 26, 2000
18,010
1
81
Originally posted by: Alistar7
Is this the same LA Times who took it upon themselves to merge 2 photos to get the desried effect of a USsoldier pointing his weapon at unarmed civilains?

Actually that is the same L.A. Times that fired the photographer who did that and printed a public apology.

 

Ornery

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
20,022
17
81
Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
More on counting casualties
Holy crap, this pure genius! Why didn't I think of this? Hell, let's factor in all the Iraqi lives saved by not being spirited off in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again. Why, if my estimations are correct, we'll have a net INCREASE in Iraqi civilian lives because of this war! Fabulous!!
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,943
6,796
126
Squisher:

"You don't think an immediate threat can be beaten before you feel any of that threat's effects?

Not a very good argument, Sir Moon."
---------------------------------
We aren't talking theoretically where some example might exist as you suggest. We are talking about a specific example where we have already seen the WMD are AWOL. There was no immediate threat, not that we magically defeated it. There were no WMD in the theater of battle. They were not used to save Saddams life. If you don't use them then, you don't have them or you would never use them.