Even the French admit that security is improving in Iraq

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Kappo

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2000
2,381
0
0
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: Kappo
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: Kappo
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I'm rather confused at this point what the mission in Iraq was. Helping school childrens? Is the Iraqi Childrens learning?

I still don't see why people think the security gains are permanent. It's fragile and it's largely due to excessive bribing and certain people deciding to wait out the U.S. occupation. In the end, the world is going to find a heavily islamicized decentralized state that is an ally of Iran.

Was that the mission goal?

In the end, it really was a humanitarian mission (which I incidentally do not agree with in any aspect).

We get to kill some terrorists, which is nice (although underwhelming - start lining our bullets with pig fat and we may get somewhere), and the "mission" is ultimately to protect our own interests (people, economy, etc...).

There were far more dire humanitarian concerns around the world. Now, you can go on barking out of your sphincter but eventually you'll just be ignored because you're a fuckin idiot.

We invaded Afghanistan for terrorism.. we invaded Iraq to remove Saddam. Sure, it helps us in the long run, but I would venture to say that it helps them FAR more than it helps us. Thus, humanitarian. Thus, my reason for us not being there.

Keep using personal attacks. I promise it makes you look smart.... what? Cant come up with anything else? Then get back to work and get me some fries.

Personal attacks? Calling you an idiot is not personal at all, you're a clown and you know why. I'm not even going to ask you why you think removing Saddam is a long term benefit. Because 1) you don't know 2) you don't know you don't know 3) despite not knowing you'll say something stupid and try to cap it off with another asinine remark about Islam and pigs.

Im pretty sure calling someone a name is a personal attack. It, in fact, defines it.

What is this?

If you cannot grasp such a simple concept, what makes you think you are the LEAST bit qualified to comment on things like world affairs?

Things needed change in the middle east. While I dont agree with how or why it happened, in the long term, it is a good thing. How it SHOULD have happened is that we should have checked for nukes/wmd, discovered none, and left the next day.

Not all of us have the auto-appeasement defect in us. Not all of us think that Saddam was a great man and should have been allowed to continue to commit genocide. The mere fact (even if I do not agree with the circumstances) that we will stand up and say that certain things will not be tolerated shows that some of us have more backbone than others.

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Kappo
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFLMAO! Funny thing is, the people I listen too have been right a hell of a lot more than the crooks and blowhards you listen to. You've been duped so many times you've got reality and fantasy turned inside-out. The Lancet study, though not perfect, is more solid than the Bush faithful will ever allow, and is generally corroborated by other, subsequent studies. While the right number is probably not over a million, it is without question somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.
Umm, no, it's been debunked like any other crackpot theory. Sources for your "information"?
Umm, no, it's been proclaimed debunked by the AM radio blowhards, partisan entertainers you've apparently confused with credible sources of factual information. I've already acknowledged it's not perfect, but there are no perfect studies of Iraqi casualties.


EDIT: Why is AT such a refuge for crackpots?
Don't know. Did you get banned from Free Republic?
You seem to do really nothing but try to insult others with a different opinion than you.

Little on the insecure side, are we?

At least we can say you are a typical lib with nothing more to do than go out of your way to be insulting and degrading to others. Yeah, let me vote for THAT!
Says the boy who calls me "crackpot". Hypocrite much? I'll note you have yet to offer any evidence supporting your claim that Iraqi fatalities do not number in the hundreds of thousands, nor your claim that the Lancet study has been "debunked". I also enjoyed your enlistment into the ranks of other BushCo fan boys who label as "liberal" anyone who challenges your Iraq propaganda. It only serves to reinforce my belief that your primary source of "news" is AM talk radio. Toodles.
 

Kappo

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2000
2,381
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Kappo
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFLMAO! Funny thing is, the people I listen too have been right a hell of a lot more than the crooks and blowhards you listen to. You've been duped so many times you've got reality and fantasy turned inside-out. The Lancet study, though not perfect, is more solid than the Bush faithful will ever allow, and is generally corroborated by other, subsequent studies. While the right number is probably not over a million, it is without question somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.
Umm, no, it's been debunked like any other crackpot theory. Sources for your "information"?
Umm, no, it's been proclaimed debunked by the AM radio blowhards, partisan entertainers you've apparently confused with credible sources of factual information. I've already acknowledged it's not perfect, but there are no perfect studies of Iraqi casualties.


EDIT: Why is AT such a refuge for crackpots?
Don't know. Did you get banned from Free Republic?
You seem to do really nothing but try to insult others with a different opinion than you.

Little on the insecure side, are we?

At least we can say you are a typical lib with nothing more to do than go out of your way to be insulting and degrading to others. Yeah, let me vote for THAT!
Says the boy who calls me "crackpot". Hypocrite much? I'll note you have yet to offer any evidence supporting your claim that Iraqi fatalities do not number in the hundreds of thousands, nor your claim that the Lancet study has been "debunked". I also enjoyed your enlistment into the ranks of other BushCo fan boys who label as "liberal" anyone who challenges your Iraq propaganda. It only serves to reinforce my belief that your primary source of "news" is AM talk radio. Toodles.

Look back over your quotes and anything I said in this thread calling anyone a crackpot.

I'll expect your apology on this post here soon when you find the err of your ways ;)

*hint* Punchkin is the one who called you a crackpot, not me. I see you are always thorough in your "investigations" though. So.. um.. if you cant even figure out who called you what.... where does that leave us?
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: Kappo
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Kappo
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFLMAO! Funny thing is, the people I listen too have been right a hell of a lot more than the crooks and blowhards you listen to. You've been duped so many times you've got reality and fantasy turned inside-out. The Lancet study, though not perfect, is more solid than the Bush faithful will ever allow, and is generally corroborated by other, subsequent studies. While the right number is probably not over a million, it is without question somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.
Umm, no, it's been debunked like any other crackpot theory. Sources for your "information"?
Umm, no, it's been proclaimed debunked by the AM radio blowhards, partisan entertainers you've apparently confused with credible sources of factual information. I've already acknowledged it's not perfect, but there are no perfect studies of Iraqi casualties.


EDIT: Why is AT such a refuge for crackpots?
Don't know. Did you get banned from Free Republic?
You seem to do really nothing but try to insult others with a different opinion than you.

Little on the insecure side, are we?

At least we can say you are a typical lib with nothing more to do than go out of your way to be insulting and degrading to others. Yeah, let me vote for THAT!
Says the boy who calls me "crackpot". Hypocrite much? I'll note you have yet to offer any evidence supporting your claim that Iraqi fatalities do not number in the hundreds of thousands, nor your claim that the Lancet study has been "debunked". I also enjoyed your enlistment into the ranks of other BushCo fan boys who label as "liberal" anyone who challenges your Iraq propaganda. It only serves to reinforce my belief that your primary source of "news" is AM talk radio. Toodles.

Look back over your quotes and anything I said in this thread calling anyone a crackpot.

I'll expect your apology on this post here soon when you find the err of your ways ;)

*hint* Punchkin is the one who called you a crackpot, not me. I see you are always thorough in your "investigations" though. So.. um.. if you cant even figure out who called you what.... where does that leave us?

Well I can see it, what's your excuse for chimmin' in?
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFLMAO! Funny thing is, the people I listen too have been right a hell of a lot more than the crooks and blowhards you listen to. You've been duped so many times you've got reality and fantasy turned inside-out. The Lancet study, though not perfect, is more solid than the Bush faithful will ever allow, and is generally corroborated by other, subsequent studies. While the right number is probably not over a million, it is without question somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.
Umm, no, it's been debunked like any other crackpot theory. Sources for your "information"?
Umm, no, it's been proclaimed debunked by the AM radio blowhards, partisan entertainers you've apparently confused with credible sources of factual information. I've already acknowledged it's not perfect, but there are no perfect studies of Iraqi casualties. ...
No, it's been proclaimed debunked by the media (as distinct from the nutcase media). So much for you.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.../uk/article3177653.ece
Old news. I won't re-hash all of the discussion about the New England Journal of Medicine study. If you're really interested, I encourage you to find that thread, and to read the actual study instead of the TimesUK's slanted summary. In brief, the NEJM study used a different methodology and came with its own set of caveats, including several acknowledging that it underestimates fatalities due to limitations of their methodology. Also note that the NEJM data is now about a year old, meaning its conservatively estimated 150K fatalities has since grown. Finally, there was recently a third study estimating Iraqi deaths might exceed one million. Put all of this together, and I stand by my original statement, that the best information we have indicates the 100,000 number is too low and that the actual total is somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
I for one will never understand why people attempt to conflate criticism of the mission with criticism of the people performing it. You can be a totally awesome person performing a noble sacrifice that turns out to be for nothing. (in fact it happens with saddening frequency)

Of course then again I'm one of those America hating bastards that thinks you can also criticize the military for being incompetent for the first 4 years of occupation. (no all the blame does not lie with the civilian commanders, a hefty proportion lies with the military as well.)

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Kappo
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Kappo
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFLMAO! Funny thing is, the people I listen too have been right a hell of a lot more than the crooks and blowhards you listen to. You've been duped so many times you've got reality and fantasy turned inside-out. The Lancet study, though not perfect, is more solid than the Bush faithful will ever allow, and is generally corroborated by other, subsequent studies. While the right number is probably not over a million, it is without question somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.
Umm, no, it's been debunked like any other crackpot theory. Sources for your "information"?
Umm, no, it's been proclaimed debunked by the AM radio blowhards, partisan entertainers you've apparently confused with credible sources of factual information. I've already acknowledged it's not perfect, but there are no perfect studies of Iraqi casualties.


EDIT: Why is AT such a refuge for crackpots?
Don't know. Did you get banned from Free Republic?
You seem to do really nothing but try to insult others with a different opinion than you.

Little on the insecure side, are we?

At least we can say you are a typical lib with nothing more to do than go out of your way to be insulting and degrading to others. Yeah, let me vote for THAT!
Says the boy who calls me "crackpot". Hypocrite much? I'll note you have yet to offer any evidence supporting your claim that Iraqi fatalities do not number in the hundreds of thousands, nor your claim that the Lancet study has been "debunked". I also enjoyed your enlistment into the ranks of other BushCo fan boys who label as "liberal" anyone who challenges your Iraq propaganda. It only serves to reinforce my belief that your primary source of "news" is AM talk radio. Toodles.
Look back over your quotes and anything I said in this thread calling anyone a crackpot.

I'll expect your apology on this post here soon when you find the err of your ways ;)

*hint* Punchkin is the one who called you a crackpot, not me. I see you are always thorough in your "investigations" though. So.. um.. if you cant even figure out who called you what.... where does that leave us?
Oops, you're right. That was Punchkin. Curious that you didn't criticize his personal attacks. You, of course, added your own insult when you jumped in with your "typical lib" crack, so I think the "Hypocrite much?" response still applies.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it also appears you dodged my reply below, never answering my question. Let's try it again:
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I'd strongly encourage you to learn to read. You're inventing all sorts of things I didn't say while ignoring the things I actually said. You also continue to make these disjointed leaps of illogic. How did you get from ">100K killed" to "you dont see terrorism and Al-Queda as a global threat", ignored the fact Iraq had nothing to do with Iraq and AQ, and then launched off onto yet another tangent about previous occupations and the attention span of the public?
It would probably be best if you replied to the original, to put it in context with your comments.
 

punchkin

Banned
Dec 13, 2007
852
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
ROFLMAO! Funny thing is, the people I listen too have been right a hell of a lot more than the crooks and blowhards you listen to. You've been duped so many times you've got reality and fantasy turned inside-out. The Lancet study, though not perfect, is more solid than the Bush faithful will ever allow, and is generally corroborated by other, subsequent studies. While the right number is probably not over a million, it is without question somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.
Umm, no, it's been debunked like any other crackpot theory. Sources for your "information"?
Umm, no, it's been proclaimed debunked by the AM radio blowhards, partisan entertainers you've apparently confused with credible sources of factual information. I've already acknowledged it's not perfect, but there are no perfect studies of Iraqi casualties. ...
No, it's been proclaimed debunked by the media (as distinct from the nutcase media). So much for you.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.../uk/article3177653.ece
Old news. I won't re-hash all of the discussion about the New England Journal of Medicine study. If you're really interested, I encourage you to find that thread, and to read the actual study instead of the TimesUK's slanted summary. In brief, the NEJM study used a different methodology and came with its own set of caveats, including several acknowledging that it underestimates fatalities due to limitations of their methodology. Also note that the NEJM data is now about a year old, meaning its conservatively estimated 150K fatalities has since grown. Finally, there was recently a third study estimating Iraqi deaths might exceed one million. Put all of this together, and I stand by my original statement, that the best information we have indicates the 100,000 number is too low and that the actual total is somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.

Yes, you're floating several numbers now, each equally soft. {yawn} Multiple inconsistent soft numbers do not equal one hard number.

 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: Kappo


Things needed change in the middle east. While I dont agree with how or why it happened, in the long term, it is a good thing. How it SHOULD have happened is that we should have checked for nukes/wmd, discovered none, and left the next day.

Not all of us have the auto-appeasement defect in us. Not all of us think that Saddam was a great man and should have been allowed to continue to commit genocide. The mere fact (even if I do not agree with the circumstances) that we will stand up and say that certain things will not be tolerated shows that some of us have more backbone than others.

Observation does not = personal attack. There are idiots in the world, you are one of them. Just parse your own sentences quoted above. How does the second sentence flow logically from the first?

Saddam committed genocide? Genocide = rwanda, pol pot, stalin, hitler. Saddam = stupid thug who killed some thousand in an INSURRECTION. I know bush wants to give people the impression he would go shoot up shia villages for fun but that is simply not the case. On the other hand, there are videotapes of blackwater employees doing drive by shootings against innocent iraqis. Maybe something is endemic to that region which requires a strongman or federated city-states?

Now, you can continue with your ann-coulter lite routine and express amazement when you're called out on it. Just don't be actually shocked when you're called out for it.
 

punchkin

Banned
Dec 13, 2007
852
0
0
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: Kappo


Things needed change in the middle east. While I dont agree with how or why it happened, in the long term, it is a good thing. How it SHOULD have happened is that we should have checked for nukes/wmd, discovered none, and left the next day.

Not all of us have the auto-appeasement defect in us. Not all of us think that Saddam was a great man and should have been allowed to continue to commit genocide. The mere fact (even if I do not agree with the circumstances) that we will stand up and say that certain things will not be tolerated shows that some of us have more backbone than others.

Observation does not = personal attack. There are idiots in the world, you are one of them. Just parse your own sentences quoted above. How does the second sentence flow logically from the first?

Saddam committed genocide? Genocide = rwanda, pol pot, stalin, hitler. Saddam = stupid thug who killed some thousand in an INSURRECTION. I know bush wants to give people the impression he would go shoot up shia villages for fun but that is simply not the case. On the other hand, there are videotapes of blackwater employees doing drive by shootings against innocent iraqis. Maybe something is endemic to that region which requires a strongman or federated city-states?

Now, you can continue with your ann-coulter lite routine and express amazement when you're called out on it. Just don't be shocked when you're called out for it.

Saved for the mod.

Oh, and Saddam was found to have committed genocide. Get over it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4555000.stm
 

Kappo

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2000
2,381
0
0
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: Kappo


Things needed change in the middle east. While I dont agree with how or why it happened, in the long term, it is a good thing. How it SHOULD have happened is that we should have checked for nukes/wmd, discovered none, and left the next day.

Not all of us have the auto-appeasement defect in us. Not all of us think that Saddam was a great man and should have been allowed to continue to commit genocide. The mere fact (even if I do not agree with the circumstances) that we will stand up and say that certain things will not be tolerated shows that some of us have more backbone than others.

Observation does not = personal attack. There are idiots in the world, you are one of them. Just parse your own sentences quoted above. How does the second sentence flow logically from the first?

Saddam committed genocide? Genocide = rwanda, pol pot, stalin, hitler. Saddam = stupid thug who killed some thousand in an INSURRECTION. I know bush wants to give people the impression he would go shoot up shia villages for fun but that is simply not the case. On the other hand, there are videotapes of blackwater employees doing drive by shootings against innocent iraqis. Maybe something is endemic to that region which requires a strongman or federated city-states?

Now, you can continue with your ann-coulter lite routine and express amazement when you're called out on it. Just don't be shocked when you're called out for it.

Is this the new liberal? "your opinion differs from mine, so you are an idiot"?

The first sentence is dealing with the personal attack. The second is dealing with the subject at hand. Next time, Ill put in footnotes so it doesnt get you all confused.

(begin topic at hand)

You think that Saddam was a good man that only defended his interests? Im not sure how the whole "killing 100k people" is even remotely considered "not a danger to anyone"...

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Umm, no, it's been proclaimed debunked by the AM radio blowhards, partisan entertainers you've apparently confused with credible sources of factual information. I've already acknowledged it's not perfect, but there are no perfect studies of Iraqi casualties. ...
No, it's been proclaimed debunked by the media (as distinct from the nutcase media). So much for you.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.../uk/article3177653.ece
Old news. I won't re-hash all of the discussion about the New England Journal of Medicine study. If you're really interested, I encourage you to find that thread, and to read the actual study instead of the TimesUK's slanted summary. In brief, the NEJM study used a different methodology and came with its own set of caveats, including several acknowledging that it underestimates fatalities due to limitations of their methodology. Also note that the NEJM data is now about a year old, meaning its conservatively estimated 150K fatalities has since grown. Finally, there was recently a third study estimating Iraqi deaths might exceed one million. Put all of this together, and I stand by my original statement, that the best information we have indicates the 100,000 number is too low and that the actual total is somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.
Yes, you're floating several numbers now, each equally soft. {yawn} Multiple inconsistent soft numbers do not equal one hard number.
Nice dodge. In other words, since we do not have a single, exact, incontrovertible number, you'll just ignore the general estimates based on the multiple studies done because they contradict your preconceptions. Got it.

Are you therefore conceding that your many assertions to the contrary are just a bunch of partisan noise? ("Nope, you're wrong." "You're trusting the data of fools and wackos. ... Crap data is worse than no data." "debunked like any other crackpot theory" "Why is AT such a refuge for crackpots?") Seems a bit arrogant to call someone else's extensive data a "debunked" "crackpot theory" when you (now) admit you don't have anything substantive to back up your attack.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: Kappo


Things needed change in the middle east. While I dont agree with how or why it happened, in the long term, it is a good thing. How it SHOULD have happened is that we should have checked for nukes/wmd, discovered none, and left the next day.

Not all of us have the auto-appeasement defect in us. Not all of us think that Saddam was a great man and should have been allowed to continue to commit genocide. The mere fact (even if I do not agree with the circumstances) that we will stand up and say that certain things will not be tolerated shows that some of us have more backbone than others.

Observation does not = personal attack. There are idiots in the world, you are one of them. Just parse your own sentences quoted above. How does the second sentence flow logically from the first?

Saddam committed genocide? Genocide = rwanda, pol pot, stalin, hitler. Saddam = stupid thug who killed some thousand in an INSURRECTION. I know bush wants to give people the impression he would go shoot up shia villages for fun but that is simply not the case. On the other hand, there are videotapes of blackwater employees doing drive by shootings against innocent iraqis. Maybe something is endemic to that region which requires a strongman or federated city-states?

Now, you can continue with your ann-coulter lite routine and express amazement when you're called out on it. Just don't be shocked when you're called out for it.

Saved for the mod.

Oh, and Saddam was found to have committed genocide. Get over it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4555000.stm


I guess General Sherman's march through the south was genocide as well then. Along with Israel's displacement of the palestinians and turkey's treatment of the kurds. For some reason i don't find a politically motivated attack against what is obviously a insurrection group to be genocide. If that's the standard, then what the shia have done to the sunnis is also genocide.

 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: Kappo


You think that Saddam was a good man that only defended his interests? Im not sure how the whole "killing 100k people" is even remotely considered "not a danger to anyone"...


See? you are an idiot. I called saddam a stupid thug. You are saying I'm calling him a good man.

Thanks for proving my point.
 

punchkin

Banned
Dec 13, 2007
852
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Umm, no, it's been proclaimed debunked by the AM radio blowhards, partisan entertainers you've apparently confused with credible sources of factual information. I've already acknowledged it's not perfect, but there are no perfect studies of Iraqi casualties. ...
No, it's been proclaimed debunked by the media (as distinct from the nutcase media). So much for you.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.../uk/article3177653.ece
Old news. I won't re-hash all of the discussion about the New England Journal of Medicine study. If you're really interested, I encourage you to find that thread, and to read the actual study instead of the TimesUK's slanted summary. In brief, the NEJM study used a different methodology and came with its own set of caveats, including several acknowledging that it underestimates fatalities due to limitations of their methodology. Also note that the NEJM data is now about a year old, meaning its conservatively estimated 150K fatalities has since grown. Finally, there was recently a third study estimating Iraqi deaths might exceed one million. Put all of this together, and I stand by my original statement, that the best information we have indicates the 100,000 number is too low and that the actual total is somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.
Yes, you're floating several numbers now, each equally soft. {yawn} Multiple inconsistent soft numbers do not equal one hard number.
Nice dodge. In other words, since we do not have a single, exact, incontrovertible number, you'll just ignore the general estimates based on the multiple studies done because they contradict your preconceptions. Got it.

Are you therefore conceding that your many assertions to the contrary are just a bunch of partisan noise? ("Nope, you're wrong." "You're trusting the data of fools and wackos. ... Crap data is worse than no data." "debunked like any other crackpot theory" "Why is AT such a refuge for crackpots?") Seems a bit arrogant to call someone else's extensive data a "debunked" "crackpot theory" when you (now) admit you don't have anything substantive to back up your attack.

Since you're going with invented numbers, why not make it ten million? LOL. To attempt to give weight to the Lancet report is lunacy.
 

punchkin

Banned
Dec 13, 2007
852
0
0
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: Kappo


Things needed change in the middle east. While I dont agree with how or why it happened, in the long term, it is a good thing. How it SHOULD have happened is that we should have checked for nukes/wmd, discovered none, and left the next day.

Not all of us have the auto-appeasement defect in us. Not all of us think that Saddam was a great man and should have been allowed to continue to commit genocide. The mere fact (even if I do not agree with the circumstances) that we will stand up and say that certain things will not be tolerated shows that some of us have more backbone than others.

Observation does not = personal attack. There are idiots in the world, you are one of them. Just parse your own sentences quoted above. How does the second sentence flow logically from the first?

Saddam committed genocide? Genocide = rwanda, pol pot, stalin, hitler. Saddam = stupid thug who killed some thousand in an INSURRECTION. I know bush wants to give people the impression he would go shoot up shia villages for fun but that is simply not the case. On the other hand, there are videotapes of blackwater employees doing drive by shootings against innocent iraqis. Maybe something is endemic to that region which requires a strongman or federated city-states?

Now, you can continue with your ann-coulter lite routine and express amazement when you're called out on it. Just don't be shocked when you're called out for it.

Saved for the mod.

Oh, and Saddam was found to have committed genocide. Get over it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4555000.stm


I guess General Sherman's march through the south was genocide as well then. Along with Israel's displacement of the palestinians and turkey's treatment of the kurds. For some reason i don't find a politically motivated attack against what is obviously a insurrection group to be genocide. If that's the standard, then what the shia have done to the sunnis is also genocide.

Yeah... I think I'll go with the court on this one, instead of an anonymous AT troll. Thanks though.

Court at the Hague: filled with judges who are experts in international law
Stoneburner: IQ 95, keyboard owner
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Umm, no, it's been proclaimed debunked by the AM radio blowhards, partisan entertainers you've apparently confused with credible sources of factual information. I've already acknowledged it's not perfect, but there are no perfect studies of Iraqi casualties. ...
No, it's been proclaimed debunked by the media (as distinct from the nutcase media). So much for you.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/t.../uk/article3177653.ece
Old news. I won't re-hash all of the discussion about the New England Journal of Medicine study. If you're really interested, I encourage you to find that thread, and to read the actual study instead of the TimesUK's slanted summary. In brief, the NEJM study used a different methodology and came with its own set of caveats, including several acknowledging that it underestimates fatalities due to limitations of their methodology. Also note that the NEJM data is now about a year old, meaning its conservatively estimated 150K fatalities has since grown. Finally, there was recently a third study estimating Iraqi deaths might exceed one million. Put all of this together, and I stand by my original statement, that the best information we have indicates the 100,000 number is too low and that the actual total is somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.
Yes, you're floating several numbers now, each equally soft. {yawn} Multiple inconsistent soft numbers do not equal one hard number.
Nice dodge. In other words, since we do not have a single, exact, incontrovertible number, you'll just ignore the general estimates based on the multiple studies done because they contradict your preconceptions. Got it.

Are you therefore conceding that your many assertions to the contrary are just a bunch of partisan noise? ("Nope, you're wrong." "You're trusting the data of fools and wackos. ... Crap data is worse than no data." "debunked like any other crackpot theory" "Why is AT such a refuge for crackpots?") Seems a bit arrogant to call someone else's extensive data a "debunked" "crackpot theory" when you (now) admit you don't have anything substantive to back up your attack.
Since you're going with invented numbers, why not make it ten million? LOL. To attempt to give weight to the Lancet report is lunacy.
"Invented numbers?" The only invented numbers are the ones from your heroes in the White House. I'm talking about statistical data.

No matter. Teh maths is hard. You're obviously incapable of coherent discussion and unwilling to admit you've made a mistake. Dismissed.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: Kappo


Things needed change in the middle east. While I dont agree with how or why it happened, in the long term, it is a good thing. How it SHOULD have happened is that we should have checked for nukes/wmd, discovered none, and left the next day.

Not all of us have the auto-appeasement defect in us. Not all of us think that Saddam was a great man and should have been allowed to continue to commit genocide. The mere fact (even if I do not agree with the circumstances) that we will stand up and say that certain things will not be tolerated shows that some of us have more backbone than others.

Observation does not = personal attack. There are idiots in the world, you are one of them. Just parse your own sentences quoted above. How does the second sentence flow logically from the first?

Saddam committed genocide? Genocide = rwanda, pol pot, stalin, hitler. Saddam = stupid thug who killed some thousand in an INSURRECTION. I know bush wants to give people the impression he would go shoot up shia villages for fun but that is simply not the case. On the other hand, there are videotapes of blackwater employees doing drive by shootings against innocent iraqis. Maybe something is endemic to that region which requires a strongman or federated city-states?

Now, you can continue with your ann-coulter lite routine and express amazement when you're called out on it. Just don't be shocked when you're called out for it.

Saved for the mod.

Oh, and Saddam was found to have committed genocide. Get over it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4555000.stm


I guess General Sherman's march through the south was genocide as well then. Along with Israel's displacement of the palestinians and turkey's treatment of the kurds. For some reason i don't find a politically motivated attack against what is obviously a insurrection group to be genocide. If that's the standard, then what the shia have done to the sunnis is also genocide.

Yeah... I think I'll go with the court on this one, instead of an anonymous AT troll. Thanks though.

Court at the Hague: filled with judges who are experts in international law
Stoneburner: IQ 95, keyboard owner


I guess you'll also go with international opinion on the question of Ariel Sharon, Israel in general, the U.S. invasion of Panama, the U.S invasion of Iraq, the U.S. detention in Gitmo.

Apparently you aren't far enough along with the right wing indoctrination sessions if you quote international tribunes for anything. Unless you're so far along that you've graduated to selective and self serving references.

Try again.
 

punchkin

Banned
Dec 13, 2007
852
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
"Invented numbers?" The only invented numbers are the ones from your heroes in the White House. I'm talking about statistical data.

No matter. Teh maths is hard. You're obviously incapable of coherent discussion and unwilling to admit you've made a mistake. Dismissed.

The Lancet figures are made up... and your one-million figure is way over the Lancet estimate of 600,000. It's so out of whack with reports from reputable sources that you should know better.

This is kind of like having a debate with an Intelligent Design supporter. You have to assign value to having valid sources for your data, or your beliefs are only wishful thinking. You're incapable of having a rational discussion on this because you seek out invalid data on the internet to support your decision, and don't care about the truth.

So I say again: let's make it ten million, hey? For the sake of "argument"! LOL
 

punchkin

Banned
Dec 13, 2007
852
0
0
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I guess you'll also go with international opinion on the question of Ariel Sharon, Israel in general, the U.S. invasion of Panama, the U.S invasion of Iraq, the U.S. detention in Gitmo.

Apparently you aren't far enough along with the right wing indoctrination sessions if you quote international tribunes for anything. Unless you're so far along that you've graduated to selective and self serving references.

Try again.

Done with your little diversionary tactic now? Saddam Hussein engaged in ethnic cleansing. End of story.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
"Invented numbers?" The only invented numbers are the ones from your heroes in the White House. I'm talking about statistical data.

No matter. Teh maths is hard. You're obviously incapable of coherent discussion and unwilling to admit you've made a mistake. Dismissed.
The Lancet figures are made up... and your one-million figure is way over the Lancet estimate of 600,000. It's so out of whack with reports from reputable sources that you should know better.

This is kind of like having a debate with an Intelligent Design supporter. You have to assign value to having valid sources for your data, or your beliefs are only wishful thinking. You're incapable of having a rational discussion on this because you seek out invalid data on the internet to support your decision, and don't care about the truth.

So I say again: let's make it ten million, hey? For the sake of "argument"! LOL
You haven't the faintest, foggiest, glimmer of a clue what you're talking about. The Lancet study was done a couple of years ago. The "greater than one million" study was reasonably current. (Sorry, don't remember who performed the second one.) That is why it reports more victims than the Lancet study. Both studies were done using statistical methodologies widely accepted as valid, at least when used to estimate natural disaster victims. Both studies acknowledged very large margins of errors based on sound statistical principles, as did the NEJM study.

If you have a solidly-researched, statistically sound basis for challenging these studies we'd all love to hear it. So far, all you've offered is mindless, endless bleating of BushCo propaganda along with one slanted spin on the NEJM study ... which you jettisoned once you found out it didn't say what you assumed it said. The only wishful thinking I've seen is your own. The ID reference is equally backwards given that you are the one denying the scientific evidence in order to cling to your preconceived beliefs.

These studies are not "out of whack with ... reputable sources". On the contrary, they are the most reputable sources we have. What they are out of whack with is the propaganda from the Bush administration and other fans of the Iraq fiasco.
 

Stoneburner

Diamond Member
May 29, 2003
3,491
0
76
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I guess you'll also go with international opinion on the question of Ariel Sharon, Israel in general, the U.S. invasion of Panama, the U.S invasion of Iraq, the U.S. detention in Gitmo.

Apparently you aren't far enough along with the right wing indoctrination sessions if you quote international tribunes for anything. Unless you're so far along that you've graduated to selective and self serving references.

Try again.

Done with your little diversionary tactic now? Saddam Hussein engaged in ethnic cleansing. End of story.

He did? That's like saying if racial group X gets in a war with racial group y, and group x wins, that's ethnic cleansing. That's also like saying any crime involving two different races is presumed to be racially motivated. That's simply false. Saddam was not racially motivated as a hitler nor was he as thorough as say a Pol Pot or Stalin. I've already said he was a stupid thug, but to place him on a pedestal with the true assholes of the 20th century is a historical fiction. I'm growing a bit tired of the hyperbolization of Saddam as a stupid roundabout way of justifying the strategic blunder that is the Iraq War.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
I'm pretty sure talking about Saddam's "ethnic cleansing" is a diversionary tactic - considering his 'cleansing' was in the early 90's - after we failed to back up the folks we had promised to help - even though we had plenty of troops right there...

So our tactic to deal with his 'ethnic cleansing' was to go in there 10-12 years later and take him out? That's a reach even for the pro-war folks.

Let's not get carried away either - May was a low month for US troop casualties, but April wasn't at all.

As for the conditions in Iraq, I read this morning that half of the children in Iraq don't have access to clean drinking water, and less than half are attending school.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,377
126
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: punchkin
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I guess you'll also go with international opinion on the question of Ariel Sharon, Israel in general, the U.S. invasion of Panama, the U.S invasion of Iraq, the U.S. detention in Gitmo.

Apparently you aren't far enough along with the right wing indoctrination sessions if you quote international tribunes for anything. Unless you're so far along that you've graduated to selective and self serving references.

Try again.

Done with your little diversionary tactic now? Saddam Hussein engaged in ethnic cleansing. End of story.

He did? That's like saying if racial group X gets in a war with racial group y, and group x wins, that's ethnic cleansing. That's also like saying any crime involving two different races is presumed to be racially motivated. That's simply false. Saddam was not racially motivated as a hitler nor was he as thorough as say a Pol Pot or Stalin. I've already said he was a stupid thug, but to place him on a pedestal with the true assholes of the 20th century is a historical fiction. I'm growing a bit tired of the hyperbolization of Saddam as a stupid roundabout way of justifying the strategic blunder that is the Iraq War.

^^ truth.