Has the fact that YOU AND I killed and tortured at least 50,000 Iraqis diminished the damage caused by Osama and 9.11

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So if someone is about to thrust a knive into your heart do you just stand there and take it or do you defend yourself???

My guess is that most people will try to avoid violence, but if someone keeps punching you you might want to fight back.

Osama blew up embasies and we did nothing
Osama blew up the USS Cole we attack an asprin factory (Almost nothing)
Osama Tried to blow up the world trade center and we did nothing
Osama destroyed the trade Center

Do you see a pattern here?

If someone really wants to kill Americans, then they will keep doing it if you dont fight back. Doing nothing is sometimes worse than fighting back.

The goal if these idiots is basically world dominion. If you want to have a beard and see your wife get the you know what beat out of here, just do nothing.

Do you see a pattern here.. Dumb Republicans trying to convince dumb Americans that Iraq and Osama had something to do with each other and that Saddam and the People Of Iraq had something to do with 9/11..

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: piasabird
So if someone is about to thrust a knive into your heart do you just stand there and take it or do you defend yourself???

My guess is that most people will try to avoid violence, but if someone keeps punching you you might want to fight back.

Osama blew up embasies and we did nothing
Osama blew up the USS Cole we attack an asprin factory (Almost nothing)
Osama Tried to blow up the world trade center and we did nothing
Osama destroyed the trade Center

Do you see a pattern here?

If someone really wants to kill Americans, then they will keep doing it if you dont fight back. Doing nothing is sometimes worse than fighting back.

The goal if these idiots is basically world dominion. If you want to have a beard and see your wife get the you know what beat out of here, just do nothing.

Do you see a pattern here.. Dumb Republicans trying to convince dumb Americans that Iraq and Osama had something to do with each other and that Saddam and the People Of Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

you had better lay out the pattern with regards to politics.

 

[Moonbeam]

We are all responsible for the violence in the world if we have not transcended our own.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Only 50,000???

Damn, not enough!

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: piasabird
So if someone is about to thrust a knive into your heart do you just stand there and take it or do you defend yourself???

My guess is that most people will try to avoid violence, but if someone keeps punching you you might want to fight back.

Osama blew up embasies and we did nothing
Osama blew up the USS Cole we attack an asprin factory (Almost nothing)
Osama Tried to blow up the world trade center and we did nothing
Osama destroyed the trade Center

Do you see a pattern here?

If someone really wants to kill Americans, then they will keep doing it if you dont fight back. Doing nothing is sometimes worse than fighting back.

The goal if these idiots is basically world dominion. If you want to have a beard and see your wife get the you know what beat out of here, just do nothing.

Very true death from above, airstikes, on all suspected terror site should have been our MO among other things..so why did we attack Iraq? Someone with a secular system who had little use for terror orgs? All it's done is increase the validity of Osama's message and spring up dozens upon dozens of copy cats...Ansar al-Islam, Ansar al-Sunna, Al-Islami Al-Iraq among ~30 others sprouted up in Iraq after our bumbling in...most are as large or larger than Al Qaeda and perpertate much more attacks in Iraq than Al Qaeda.

Also unlike Al Qaeda most are run by hardend Sunni combat troops /officers instead of Saudi trash looking to martyr himself. They have real access to weapons training and local tribal support making them much more dangerous. CIA, RAND and others have a apocalypic vision these groups will remember and attack USA one day making 9/11 look like a conveniance store robbery.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LunarRay
We didn't invade Iraq to count who killed who.. we did so based on our assertion that Iraq possessed WMD, Delivery Systems and intended to launch those WMD in 40 days!

It is for the UN to act in matters of Human Rights Violations not the unilateral or bilateral protectorate of the US and Great Britain.

Like Woodstock in '69 where everyone but me went who was old enough to have gone... no one voted for Bush who was old enough to have done so.. Who elected him if no one voted for him.. Not one person on my 'block' says they did.. nor any or many in this thread... amazing..

Hey, I've voted for the Libertarian presidential candidate in the last three elections. If only None Of The Above would run...

I think I voted Perot, Clinton, Gore, Kerry...

 

[CaptnKirk]

I only killed and tortured Vietnamese - this is a young man's war, best left to our kids for killing and torturing at the dirction of the same fools that brought us Vietnam.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: LunarRay
We didn't invade Iraq to count who killed who.. we did so based on our assertion that Iraq possessed WMD, Delivery Systems and intended to launch those WMD in 40 days!

It is for the UN to act in matters of Human Rights Violations not the unilateral or bilateral protectorate of the US and Great Britain.

Like Woodstock in '69 where everyone but me went who was old enough to have gone... no one voted for Bush who was old enough to have done so.. Who elected him if no one voted for him.. Not one person on my 'block' says they did.. nor any or many in this thread... amazing..

Solona Beach Ca does'nt decide the presidential election all by itself. Everyone in my neighborhood voted Bush as far as I can tell and the red states elected bush, the heartland. The shits starting to hit the fan though everywhere and just wait until after novemeber elections, Bush will castrated finally and get his just due for all his failures.

What?s happening in Washington now is that the establishment political class?and that includes the military, moderate Republican and Democratic members of Congress, the jabbering pundits and op-ed writers, and the bulk of the thinktank denizens?are coming to grips with the stark fact that the war in Iraq is over. And that the United States has lost. It?s beginning to sink in, but it won?t be confronted directly by the political class until after the November elections. After that, all hell is going to break loose. If the Democrats win back Congress, it will happen faster?but even if the Republicans hang on, the gusting winds on Iraq now buffeting the White House will gather strength to become a full-fledged, Category 5 hurricane.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/08/iraqs_reality_sinks_in.php

Of course we do... Don't we?... must be them chads again..

Regarding your more salient point, I'd only agree totally!

Yeah.. November will be very interesting indeed... however, the days leading up to it will be of greater interest to me.. I really love to see what each side cooks up to win... I really like the hurricane metaphor. If there is one that Pat Robertson don't pray into a rain squall it should flood the very halls of Congress with a force great enough to make a change occur in both parties.. one in contemplation of the '08 Presidential race and one to do what is right... Neither side will do the latter if it jeopardizes the former.. imo

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: Harvey
[Who's Watching Over Who's Watching Over You?

Shameless plug for your lame song?

If you don't like it, you're obviously a stupid Republican bigot.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: conjur

Ah, the simpleton analysis.

Typical.

Let's take out the rebellions/uprisings put down by Saddam (as any sitting leader would have done the same) and that brings us down to about 60,000 over 24yrs (2500/yr)

And, sorry, the Iran/Iraq war doesn't count. That was a war, not part of oppressing his own people.

Right now, the average death toll of civilians in Iraq is 700/mo. = 8400/yr)
http://icasaulties.org
(and that's a very conservative estimate)

Ok based on your logic:
1. We are right now in a rebellion/uprising that we are in the process of "putting down" therefore these deaths don't count (after all we are the "sitting leader" and "any sitting leader would have done the same")

Uh, the US is the gov't in Iraq? That's interesting. And here you righties have been touting the "free elections" as a great leap forward in Iraq.

or
2. Since the Iraq-Iran war deaths don't count, and this is a "war" then all the deaths in it don't count either.

This is not a war. No war was declared by Congress which is the only body that can declare a war. We're "staying the course" and training Iraqis and providing security.

or
3. We can stop making excuses for all the people killed under Saddam or trying to explain them away with "any sitting leader" type lines and just look at the facts.

The fact is more people died per year under Saddam than are dying now, a lot more.

Is that a fact much like 2+2=7 is a fact? Looks like it to me.

Does this make the deaths of 40,000 people a good thing? No, of course not.


Ps. Stalin killed 20 million people, I guess that is ok because as you say "any sitting leader would have done the same"

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: conjur
I don't have a paid subscription to NYTimes Select.

But, here are the estimates for Saddam:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat3.htm#sadhus

300,000 over 24 years.

That does not include the 500,000 to 1 million deaths in the Iraq-Iran war.
Here is a source that claims 600,000 civilain executions under Saddam.
The Saddam death total averages out to 70-125 civilian deaths a year for his entire 24 years.

The best figures for the number of deaths since our invasion is in the 40,000 range.

So let's do the math.
Saddam let's 1 million total deaths, which is most likely low, but a good figure if you include civilians and war dead.
Since US invasion 40,000

Saddam in power 24 years.
1,000,000 divided by 24= 41,666 per year

US invasion 3 years
40,000 divided by 3 years = 13,333 per year

WOW who would have thought...
There are on average less Iraqis dying now than died under Saddam, what the hell...
I guess we can say that we actually saved lives...

Dunhunan, if you don't like my conclusion use some hard evidence to dispute it, not name calling.

Source of Saddam figures:
http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_deathsundersaddamhussein42503.html

Just playing devil's advocate for a moment... Couldn't a lot of those killed by Saddam have been the types who are now shooting their fellow citizens? i.e. the population of "terrorists" or whatever you want to call them used to be 1 million; Saddam knocked that down pretty low, and we're working on what's left? I don't recall that Iraq was on the brink of civil war under Saddam... perhaps while horrible that he killed so many, it was the only way to keep them from killing each other? i.e. a necessary but horrible evil?
/end devils advocate.

 

[imported_dna]

What a retarted premise for this thread -- 50k death being the USA's fault.....

What's the matter people? Aren't you going to blame the USA for all the Tsunami related deaths?

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: dna
What a retarted premise for this thread -- 50k death being the USA's fault.....

What's the matter people? Aren't you going to blame the USA for all the Tsunami related deaths?

Tsuanamis are created by The Military Industrial Complex??

Seems like your comparison is what is retarded

WE ARE IN IRAQ AND DESTABILIZING IT AND BOMBING THE FVCK OUT OF IT.. RIGHT?? - FOR THE LAST THREE FVCKING YEARS RIGHT EINSTEIN??

 

[yllus]

Do you have too many X chromosomes or something, dude? You're awfully emotional lately, and making even dumber threads than usual.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Tsuanamis are created by The Military Industrial Complex??

Seems like your comparison is what is retarded

WOOOOOSHHHHH!!!!

Heard that? That was sarcasm doing mach 3 over your head.

WE ARE IN IRAQ AND DESTABILIZING IT AND BOMBING THE FVCK OUT OF IT.. RIGHT?? - FOR THE LAST THREE FVCKING YEARS RIGHT EINSTEIN??

Destabilising and bombing it?
I guess all the money flowing in to Iraq is used to make paper planes.

You're the kind of person who would believe al-Sadr when he says that Zionist bombed the mosque in Samarra.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: conjur in response to my comments.

Originally posted by: conjur

Ah, the simpleton analysis.

Typical.

Let's take out the rebellions/uprisings put down by Saddam (as any sitting leader would have done the same) and that brings us down to about 60,000 over 24yrs (2500/yr)

And, sorry, the Iran/Iraq war doesn't count. That was a war, not part of oppressing his own people.

Right now, the average death toll of civilians in Iraq is 700/mo. = 8400/yr)
http://icasaulties.org
(and that's a very conservative estimate)

Uh, the US is the gov't in Iraq? That's interesting. And here you righties have been touting the "free elections" as a great leap forward in Iraq.

This is not a war. No war was declared by Congress which is the only body that can declare a war. We're "staying the course" and training Iraqis and providing security.

Is that a fact much like 2+2=7 is a fact? Looks like it to me.

Conjur, please explain to me your "any sitting leader would have done the same" comment as an excuse for Saddam killing 50,000 to 100,000 Kurds during the Anfal campaign or the 100,000 to 200,000 people killed in the post Gulf War 1 uprising.
Are you saying that a dictator, who is a sitting leader, can kill as many people as he wants??

As for my first response, I was answering your absurdities with my own absurdities.
Oh and by the way, you still have not posted any kind of argument or evidence that proves I am wrong when I said that more people died per year under Saddam than are dying now.
"In Iraq, Civilian Deaths Have Fallen Since the Start of the War" written by someone with a PhD in Iraqi history from Oxford.
http://www.gbn.com/ArticleDisplayServlet.srv?aid=2400&msp=1242

Note: I edited out my comments that conjur was responding to inorder to shorten the length of this post, if you want to see what I said then scroll up.

 

[conjur]

1st off, the dead in the Tal Anfar campaign were first attributed to Iran by the US (go look it up). They didn't want to taint their good guy, buddy, ally, Saddam. Now that Saddam is a "bad man" and a part of the "axis of evil" the tables have turned. How convenient. And averaging deaths per year with two incidents that were grossly beyond the other 22 years' average is quite disingenuous, esp. for a "prof", don't ya think?

As for Stephen Cass, "uh...who?"

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: conjur
1st off, the dead in the Tal Anfar campaign were first attributed to Iran by the US (go look it up). They didn't want to taint their good guy, buddy, ally, Saddam. Now that Saddam is a "bad man" and a part of the "axis of evil" the tables have turned. How convenient. And averaging deaths per year with two incidents that were grossly beyond the other 22 years' average is quite disingenuous, esp. for a "prof", don't ya think?

As for Stephen Cass, "uh...who?"

I take it you are not going to explain your "any sitting leader would have done the same" comment.
And nice job on trying to deflect the Anfar deaths, no mater who they were first attributed to, we know now who actually did them, so please explain why Saddam was justified in killing 100,000+ people.