Anti-War George Soros Funded Iraq Study

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Just my personal opinion here but once that number went above 10,000 or so did it really matter if it was 150K or 650K? That is a lot of fucking dead people.

I agree. In a perfect world, the number would be 0.

So how many deaths are acceptable Pabster?

Doesnt his answer pretty much answer that question? Or are you trolling?

I didn't ask you. Since you decided to answer for him, I'll ask you as well as him. How many deaths are acceptable?

ugh. I was simply pointing out he already answered the question you asked. I wasnt answering for him.

As far as what I think, its irrelevant. As is your opinion on this matter.

Its not irrelevant. Stop dodging like he is. He and you didn't answer directly. How many deaths are acceptable? Its a simple question. Or is the reason you won't directly answer because then you would have to question your own morals?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Just my personal opinion here but once that number went above 10,000 or so did it really matter if it was 150K or 650K? That is a lot of fucking dead people.

I agree. In a perfect world, the number would be 0.

So how many deaths are acceptable Pabster?

Doesnt his answer pretty much answer that question? Or are you trolling?

I didn't ask you. Since you decided to answer for him, I'll ask you as well as him. How many deaths are acceptable?

ugh. I was simply pointing out he already answered the question you asked. I wasnt answering for him.

As far as what I think, its irrelevant. As is your opinion on this matter.

No it is not irrelevant. You support this murderous war. Have the balls to put a limit on what is acceptable, or maybe there is no limit? That is a valid question.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Just my personal opinion here but once that number went above 10,000 or so did it really matter if it was 150K or 650K? That is a lot of fucking dead people.

I agree. In a perfect world, the number would be 0.

So how many deaths are acceptable Pabster?

Doesnt his answer pretty much answer that question? Or are you trolling?

I didn't ask you. Since you decided to answer for him, I'll ask you as well as him. How many deaths are acceptable?

ugh. I was simply pointing out he already answered the question you asked. I wasnt answering for him.

As far as what I think, its irrelevant. As is your opinion on this matter.

No it is not irrelevant. You support this murderous war. Have the balls to put a limit on what is acceptable, or maybe there is no limit? That is a valid question.

I would challenge you to find ONE person on this board who thinks a number higher than zero is acceptable. Including myself.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was estimated that under Saddam there were 500,000 Iraqis a year dying due to sanctions. So 650,000 vs. 2,500,000. Apparently those against the war are willing to sacrifice close to an additional 2,000,000 Iraqis to maintain the status quo.

Iraqi conditions are far far worse now than even during the sanctions. So it stands to reason that Iraqis are dying in higher numbers now than then.

Not according to the numbers that get bandied about. You have any proof they are dying in higher numbers now or are you just pulling that statement straight out of your rear end?

Why shouldn't they be dying more now that conditions are worse?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Just my personal opinion here but once that number went above 10,000 or so did it really matter if it was 150K or 650K? That is a lot of fucking dead people.

I agree. In a perfect world, the number would be 0.

So how many deaths are acceptable Pabster?

Doesnt his answer pretty much answer that question? Or are you trolling?

I didn't ask you. Since you decided to answer for him, I'll ask you as well as him. How many deaths are acceptable?

Can you read? The answer is 0. But we cant turn back the clock, something you Paulbots cant seem to wrap your little brains around.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was estimated that under Saddam there were 500,000 Iraqis a year dying due to sanctions. So 650,000 vs. 2,500,000. Apparently those against the war are willing to sacrifice close to an additional 2,000,000 Iraqis to maintain the status quo.

Iraqi conditions are far far worse now than even during the sanctions. So it stands to reason that Iraqis are dying in higher numbers now than then.

Not according to the numbers that get bandied about. You have any proof they are dying in higher numbers now or are you just pulling that statement straight out of your rear end?

Why shouldn't they be dying more now that conditions are worse?

Your opinion on the conditions in Iraq do not constitute fact. Stop trying to create a strawman of an argument. If you have proof that more than 2,500,000 have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion please present it. If not, stop trying to use vapidly poor rationalizations.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The point is that no one really knows how many Iraqi deaths there have been. Certainly the official 151,000 figure is a gross underestimation because it only counts officially confirmed deaths in a country where reporting the death of a relative can be extremely hazardous to health. And from what I have read, anyone in the field that is remotely unbiased clearly states the 151,000 figure is an absolute minimum and is most probably a gross underestimation of the unknown true number.

Maybe The Soros financed study which relies on other methodologies could be a gross over estimation or maybe its about right. And its also a dated study that put the most probable range between 650,000 to 850,000.

Please tell me where this 3/4 of a million people are buried? You would think they would be running out of cemetary room in the more densely populated areas by now; I would think there would probably be a news story about it somewhere.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: Pabster


Pabster is a disgusting man.

:thumbsup:

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The point is that no one really knows how many Iraqi deaths there have been. Certainly the official 151,000 figure is a gross underestimation because it only counts officially confirmed deaths in a country where reporting the death of a relative can be extremely hazardous to health. And from what I have read, anyone in the field that is remotely unbiased clearly states the 151,000 figure is an absolute minimum and is most probably a gross underestimation of the unknown true number.

Maybe The Soros financed study which relies on other methodologies could be a gross over estimation or maybe its about right. And its also a dated study that put the most probable range between 650,000 to 850,000.

Please tell me where this 3/4 of a million people are buried? You would think they would be running out of cemetary room in the more densely populated areas by now; I would think there would probably be a news story about it somewhere.

Google "mass graves in iraq" and you get lots of info. Here's just one

"Over 250 sites have been reported, of which approximately 40 have been confirmed to date" as of 2003

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The point is that no one really knows how many Iraqi deaths there have been. Certainly the official 151,000 figure is a gross underestimation because it only counts officially confirmed deaths in a country where reporting the death of a relative can be extremely hazardous to health. And from what I have read, anyone in the field that is remotely unbiased clearly states the 151,000 figure is an absolute minimum and is most probably a gross underestimation of the unknown true number.

Maybe The Soros financed study which relies on other methodologies could be a gross over estimation or maybe its about right. And its also a dated study that put the most probable range between 650,000 to 850,000.

Please tell me where this 3/4 of a million people are buried? You would think they would be running out of cemetary room in the more densely populated areas by now; I would think there would probably be a news story about it somewhere.

Google "mass graves in iraq" and you get lots of info. Here's just one

"Over 250 sites have been reported, of which approximately 40 have been confirmed to date" as of 2003

No; I don't want the ones from Saddams Reign of Terror; I want to see the ones from the supposed "US Havoc Wreaking and Indiscriminate Killing" that surely must be there if we have contributed to killing 3/4 a million people as the libs so attest.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The point is that no one really knows how many Iraqi deaths there have been. Certainly the official 151,000 figure is a gross underestimation because it only counts officially confirmed deaths in a country where reporting the death of a relative can be extremely hazardous to health. And from what I have read, anyone in the field that is remotely unbiased clearly states the 151,000 figure is an absolute minimum and is most probably a gross underestimation of the unknown true number.

Maybe The Soros financed study which relies on other methodologies could be a gross over estimation or maybe its about right. And its also a dated study that put the most probable range between 650,000 to 850,000.

Please tell me where this 3/4 of a million people are buried? You would think they would be running out of cemetary room in the more densely populated areas by now; I would think there would probably be a news story about it somewhere.

Google "mass graves in iraq" and you get lots of info. Here's just one

"Over 250 sites have been reported, of which approximately 40 have been confirmed to date" as of 2003

Before the Iraq war?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: umbrella39
Just my personal opinion here but once that number went above 10,000 or so did it really matter if it was 150K or 650K? That is a lot of fucking dead people.

I agree. In a perfect world, the number would be 0.

So how many deaths are acceptable Pabster?

Doesnt his answer pretty much answer that question? Or are you trolling?

I didn't ask you. Since you decided to answer for him, I'll ask you as well as him. How many deaths are acceptable?

Can you read? The answer is 0. But we cant turn back the clock, something you Paulbots cant seem to wrap your little brains around.

It isn't about turning back any clock or whatever time machine you tin foil hat wearing psychopaths are screaming about. Its about admitting to yourself that even 1 death is too many and take action against the possibility of more at the hands of our government. Do not run from it, face it, then do something to stop it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The point is that no one really knows how many Iraqi deaths there have been. Certainly the official 151,000 figure is a gross underestimation because it only counts officially confirmed deaths in a country where reporting the death of a relative can be extremely hazardous to health. And from what I have read, anyone in the field that is remotely unbiased clearly states the 151,000 figure is an absolute minimum and is most probably a gross underestimation of the unknown true number.

Maybe The Soros financed study which relies on other methodologies could be a gross over estimation or maybe its about right. And its also a dated study that put the most probable range between 650,000 to 850,000.

Please tell me where this 3/4 of a million people are buried? You would think they would be running out of cemetary room in the more densely populated areas by now; I would think there would probably be a news story about it somewhere.

Google "mass graves in iraq" and you get lots of info. Here's just one

"Over 250 sites have been reported, of which approximately 40 have been confirmed to date" as of 2003

No; I don't want the ones from Saddams Reign of Terror; I want to see the ones from the supposed "US Havoc Wreaking and Indiscriminate Killing" that surely must be there if we have contributed to killing 3/4 a million people as the libs so attest.

My misunderstanding. I agree. I would like to see those as well.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was estimated that under Saddam there were 500,000 Iraqis a year dying due to sanctions. So 650,000 vs. 2,500,000. Apparently those against the war are willing to sacrifice close to an additional 2,000,000 Iraqis to maintain the status quo.

Iraqi conditions are far far worse now than even during the sanctions. So it stands to reason that Iraqis are dying in higher numbers now than then.

Not according to the numbers that get bandied about. You have any proof they are dying in higher numbers now or are you just pulling that statement straight out of your rear end?

Why shouldn't they be dying more now that conditions are worse?

Your opinion on the conditions in Iraq do not constitute fact. Stop trying to create a strawman of an argument. If you have proof that more than 2,500,000 have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion please present it. If not, stop trying to use vapidly poor rationalizations.

His opinion? Ok, how about the testimony of the lady in this video? Does that constitute "living conditions" for you?

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was estimated that under Saddam there were 500,000 Iraqis a year dying due to sanctions. So 650,000 vs. 2,500,000. Apparently those against the war are willing to sacrifice close to an additional 2,000,000 Iraqis to maintain the status quo.

Iraqi conditions are far far worse now than even during the sanctions. So it stands to reason that Iraqis are dying in higher numbers now than then.

Not according to the numbers that get bandied about. You have any proof they are dying in higher numbers now or are you just pulling that statement straight out of your rear end?

Why shouldn't they be dying more now that conditions are worse?

Your opinion on the conditions in Iraq do not constitute fact. Stop trying to create a strawman of an argument. If you have proof that more than 2,500,000 have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion please present it. If not, stop trying to use vapidly poor rationalizations.

Hehehe, you are the one swinging vapidly poor rationalizations about to support the invasion. You are the one using the logic that it is ok to kill Iraqis in their hundreds of thousands to support US policy in the region.

I do not know exactly how many hundreds of thousands Iraqis have died as a result of US politics. But unlike you I think it is time to stop this genocide.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was estimated that under Saddam there were 500,000 Iraqis a year dying due to sanctions. So 650,000 vs. 2,500,000. Apparently those against the war are willing to sacrifice close to an additional 2,000,000 Iraqis to maintain the status quo.

Iraqi conditions are far far worse now than even during the sanctions. So it stands to reason that Iraqis are dying in higher numbers now than then.

Not according to the numbers that get bandied about. You have any proof they are dying in higher numbers now or are you just pulling that statement straight out of your rear end?

Why shouldn't they be dying more now that conditions are worse?

Your opinion on the conditions in Iraq do not constitute fact. Stop trying to create a strawman of an argument. If you have proof that more than 2,500,000 have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion please present it. If not, stop trying to use vapidly poor rationalizations.

His opinion? Ok, how about the testimony of the lady in this video? Does that constitute "living conditions" for you?

How about trying to supply a Ron Paul free link for us?

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
ine you tin foil hat wearing psychopaths are screaming about.

I guess you missed my sig. Better check the links in it before you start calling us the tin foil hat wearing psychopaths.

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was estimated that under Saddam there were 500,000 Iraqis a year dying due to sanctions. So 650,000 vs. 2,500,000. Apparently those against the war are willing to sacrifice close to an additional 2,000,000 Iraqis to maintain the status quo.

Iraqi conditions are far far worse now than even during the sanctions. So it stands to reason that Iraqis are dying in higher numbers now than then.

Not according to the numbers that get bandied about. You have any proof they are dying in higher numbers now or are you just pulling that statement straight out of your rear end?

Why shouldn't they be dying more now that conditions are worse?

Your opinion on the conditions in Iraq do not constitute fact. Stop trying to create a strawman of an argument. If you have proof that more than 2,500,000 have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion please present it. If not, stop trying to use vapidly poor rationalizations.

Hehehe, you are the one swinging vapidly poor rationalizations about to support the invasion. You are the one using the logic that it is ok to kill Iraqis in their hundreds of thousands to support US policy in the region.

I do not know exactly how many hundreds of thousands Iraqis have died as a result of US politics. But unlike you I think it is time to stop this genocide.

Hell yeah! There it is; accusing America of genocide. :roll:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was estimated that under Saddam there were 500,000 Iraqis a year dying due to sanctions. So 650,000 vs. 2,500,000. Apparently those against the war are willing to sacrifice close to an additional 2,000,000 Iraqis to maintain the status quo.

Iraqi conditions are far far worse now than even during the sanctions. So it stands to reason that Iraqis are dying in higher numbers now than then.

Not according to the numbers that get bandied about. You have any proof they are dying in higher numbers now or are you just pulling that statement straight out of your rear end?

Why shouldn't they be dying more now that conditions are worse?

Your opinion on the conditions in Iraq do not constitute fact. Stop trying to create a strawman of an argument. If you have proof that more than 2,500,000 have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion please present it. If not, stop trying to use vapidly poor rationalizations.

His opinion? Ok, how about the testimony of the lady in this video? Does that constitute "living conditions" for you?

You mean this woman? Surely an anti-war activist would have no bias. :roll:

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was estimated that under Saddam there were 500,000 Iraqis a year dying due to sanctions. So 650,000 vs. 2,500,000. Apparently those against the war are willing to sacrifice close to an additional 2,000,000 Iraqis to maintain the status quo.

Iraqi conditions are far far worse now than even during the sanctions. So it stands to reason that Iraqis are dying in higher numbers now than then.

Not according to the numbers that get bandied about. You have any proof they are dying in higher numbers now or are you just pulling that statement straight out of your rear end?

Why shouldn't they be dying more now that conditions are worse?

Your opinion on the conditions in Iraq do not constitute fact. Stop trying to create a strawman of an argument. If you have proof that more than 2,500,000 have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion please present it. If not, stop trying to use vapidly poor rationalizations.

His opinion? Ok, how about the testimony of the lady in this video? Does that constitute "living conditions" for you?

You mean this woman? Surely an anti-war activist would have no bias. :roll:

But I read it on t3h internetz! It muz b tru!

 

[Sinsear]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was estimated that under Saddam there were 500,000 Iraqis a year dying due to sanctions. So 650,000 vs. 2,500,000. Apparently those against the war are willing to sacrifice close to an additional 2,000,000 Iraqis to maintain the status quo.

Iraqi conditions are far far worse now than even during the sanctions. So it stands to reason that Iraqis are dying in higher numbers now than then.

Not according to the numbers that get bandied about. You have any proof they are dying in higher numbers now or are you just pulling that statement straight out of your rear end?

Why shouldn't they be dying more now that conditions are worse?

Your opinion on the conditions in Iraq do not constitute fact. Stop trying to create a strawman of an argument. If you have proof that more than 2,500,000 have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion please present it. If not, stop trying to use vapidly poor rationalizations.

His opinion? Ok, how about the testimony of the lady in this video? Does that constitute "living conditions" for you?

You mean this woman? Surely an anti-war activist would have no bias. :roll:

And she has lived in the US since '77; and went on a 3 month trip back to Iraq; hell, I've spent more time there in the last 5 years than she has.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Sinsear


How about trying to supply a Ron Paul free link for us?

Ron Paul is only about 30 seconds in that video, how about not having knee jerk responses and actually watch it?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
ine you tin foil hat wearing psychopaths are screaming about.

I guess you missed my sig. Better check the links in it before you start calling us the tin foil hat wearing psychopaths.

Yeah, Ron Paul supporters are "Lynch mobs" :roll:

You will have to do better than that. But Ron Paul isn't the discussion here as much as you would like it to be.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It was estimated that under Saddam there were 500,000 Iraqis a year dying due to sanctions. So 650,000 vs. 2,500,000. Apparently those against the war are willing to sacrifice close to an additional 2,000,000 Iraqis to maintain the status quo.

Iraqi conditions are far far worse now than even during the sanctions. So it stands to reason that Iraqis are dying in higher numbers now than then.

Not according to the numbers that get bandied about. You have any proof they are dying in higher numbers now or are you just pulling that statement straight out of your rear end?

Why shouldn't they be dying more now that conditions are worse?

Your opinion on the conditions in Iraq do not constitute fact. Stop trying to create a strawman of an argument. If you have proof that more than 2,500,000 have died in Iraq as a result of the invasion please present it. If not, stop trying to use vapidly poor rationalizations.

Hehehe, you are the one swinging vapidly poor rationalizations about to support the invasion. You are the one using the logic that it is ok to kill Iraqis in their hundreds of thousands to support US policy in the region.

I do not know exactly how many hundreds of thousands Iraqis have died as a result of US politics. But unlike you I think it is time to stop this genocide.

So sentencing 2,000,000 Iraqis to death to achieve those goals are acceptable to you.

To ask the moronically and idiotically rhetorical question and put it back in the lap of the anti-war crowd - How many deaths are acceptable to you?

 

[Noobtastic]

I like Ron Paul. I don't get the hate.