No need to count dead Iraqi civilians b/c we didn't mean to kill them

[BaliBabyDoc]

ABCNews
(next thing you know they will stop talking about WMD in Iraq . . . oh nevermind)

BAGHDAD, Iraq Dec. 10 ? Iraq's Health Ministry has ordered a halt to a count of civilians killed during the war and told its statistics department not to release figures compiled so far, the official who oversaw the count told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

"We have stopped the collection of this information because our minister didn't agree with it," she said, adding: "The CPA doesn't want this to be done."

The U.S. and British militaries don't count civilian casualties from their wars, saying only that they try to minimize civilian deaths.

"He told me, `You should move far away from this subject,'" Mohsen said. "I don't know why."

 

[miguel]

What exactly is the point? That the US military target civilians for killings in Iraq? Stop dancing around the bush (pardon the pun). Get to the point.

 

[tnitsuj]

Big deal, we aren't going to dwell on colateral damage. Helps us better focus on the mission, and helps the Iraqis not get too caught up in the details.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Only a propagandist would imply the US targets civilians. I'm saying the US (leadership) doesn't respect civilians as much as it should. There's a big difference. Analysis of the who, what, when, where, and how of civilian casualties in Iraq might be valuable information for reducing the civilian toll in future (unavoidable) conflicts. Of course, if you don't bother to collect the data . . . it is reasonable to conclude you don't care to do better.

That's a far cry from Saddam lobbing Scuds at Israel, gassing Kurds, or slaughtering Shi'ites . . . but the outcome is unfortunately the same.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Only a propagandist would imply the US targets civilians. I'm saying the US (leadership) doesn't respect civilians as much as it should. There's a big difference. Analysis of the who, what, when, where, and how of civilian casualties in Iraq might be valuable information for reducing the civilian toll in future (unavoidable) conflicts. Of course, if you don't bother to collect the data . . . it is reasonable to conclude you don't care to do better.

I think they are probably doing as well as can be expected. I don't think anyone has proved a pattern or practice of misbehaviour or carelessness as of yet.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: miguel
What exactly is the point? That the US military target civilians for killings in Iraq? Stop dancing around the bush (pardon the pun). Get to the point.

The point is that a lot of civilians died in a bullsh1t war.
And the bush is only good to sh1t on, not dance around.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: miguel
What exactly is the point? That the US military target civilians for killings in Iraq? Stop dancing around the bush (pardon the pun). Get to the point.

The point is that a lot of civilians died in a bullsh1t war.
And the bush is only good to sh1t on, not dance around.

Nice. Are you always angry or is it only when you think of Bush?

Every war has casualties. Every war has collateral damage. If you believe it's a bulls1t war, that's your perogative. Do you just bitch on the sidelines or do you actually have some ideas to share?

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

Originally posted by: miguel
What exactly is the point? That the US military target civilians for killings in Iraq? Stop dancing around the bush (pardon the pun). Get to the point.

The point is that a lot of civilians died in a bullsh1t war.
And the bush is only good to sh1t on, not dance around.

Nice. Are you always angry or is it only when you think of Bush?

Every war has casualties. Every war has collateral damage. If you believe it's a bulls1t war, that's your perogative. Do you just bitch on the sidelines or do you actually have some ideas to share?

Prove to me that it has not been a bullsh1t war brought on by lies.
Can you?

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Nice. Are you always angry or is it only when you think of Bush?

Bush doesn't make me angry. I pitty the retard.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I think they are probably doing as well as can be expected. I don't think anyone has proved a pattern or practice of misbehaviour or carelessness as of yet.

Surely you understand that you CANNOT prove a pattern of carelessness OR extreme due diligence without information about how many casualties occurred and how they happened? Instead you will revert to your biases (not a personal reference . . . that's what everyone does when they lack information).

US=good . . . US actions=good . . . criticism of US=unfounded.

The overwelming majority of our servicepeople are doing the best they can in a difficult situation; hostile climate, half a world from home, don't know the language, don't know the customs, and can scarcely tell friend from foe. But the civilian leadership sux great big donkey balls.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom
Prove to me that it has not been a bullsh1t war brought on by lies.
Can you?

No, I can't. Because regardless of what I write, you will a) not believe it and b) do not have an open mind about this. So, even if painstakingly write out thoughtful sentences for you, you can (and will, no doubt) pick them apart because everyone knows that any argument (especially with the Internet as an audience) can be countered without regard of facts or proof.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

No, I can't. Because regardless of what I write, you will a) not believe it and b) do not have an open mind about this. So, even if painstakingly write out thoughtful sentences for you, you can (and will, no doubt) pick them apart because everyone knows that any argument (especially with the Internet as an audience) can be countered without regard of facts or proof.

You mean just like the war was started without regard of facts or proof, right?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

No, I can't. Because regardless of what I write, you will a) not believe it and b) do not have an open mind about this. So, even if painstakingly write out thoughtful sentences for you, you can (and will, no doubt) pick them apart because everyone knows that any argument (especially with the Internet as an audience) can be countered without regard of facts or proof.

You mean just like the war was started without regard of facts or proof, right?

I'm noticing a pattern with you Bush-haters. As long as there is some kind of snipe agaist Bush, WMD, Iraq, 2000 Election, etc. you are happy. Is that some kind of security blanket? Do you go to bed at night saying "good night, honey. Where's the WMD?"

 

[preslove]

Howabout instead of wasting billions of dollars in a war founded upon tendentious intelligence that has been proven false, you invest in domestic civilian, first response, health care, and law enforcement infrastructure? That way when they do attack we are ready. Then, instead of pissing the rest of the world off, you cooperate with the rest of the world's intelligence community and go after the Terrorist cells.


But wait, how would this translate into billions for Bechtel and Haliburton?

peace, please?

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: preslove
Howabout instead of wasting billions of dollars in a war founded upon tendentious intelligence that has been proven false, you invest in domestic civilian, first response, health care, and law enforcement infrastructure? That way when they do attack we are ready. Then, instead of pissing the rest of the world off, you cooperate with the rest of the world's intelligence community and go after the Terrorist cells.


But wait, how would this translate into billions for Bechtel and Haliburton?

peace, please?

That's a nice, clean scenario. I find your statement about "when they do attack we are ready" very amusing. But also very telling.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

No, I can't. Because regardless of what I write, you will a) not believe it and b) do not have an open mind about this. So, even if painstakingly write out thoughtful sentences for you, you can (and will, no doubt) pick them apart because everyone knows that any argument (especially with the Internet as an audience) can be countered without regard of facts or proof.

You mean just like the war was started without regard of facts or proof, right?

I'm noticing a pattern with you Bush-haters. As long as there is some kind of snipe agaist Bush, WMD, Iraq, 2000 Election, etc. you are happy. Is that some kind of security blanket? Do you go to bed at night saying "good night, honey. Where's the WMD?"

Stop whining and answer the question!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I'm noticing a pattern with you Bush-haters. As long as there is some kind of snipe agaist Bush, WMD, Iraq, 2000 Election, etc. you are happy. Is that some kind of security blanket? Do you go to bed at night saying "good night, honey. Where's the WMD?"

Not to hijack my own thread . . . but didn't Bush "sell" his war by sending people to bed at night with the thought, "my God, Honey . . . we must stop Saddam, Al Qaeda, and their WMD!?"

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

No, I can't. Because regardless of what I write, you will a) not believe it and b) do not have an open mind about this. So, even if painstakingly write out thoughtful sentences for you, you can (and will, no doubt) pick them apart because everyone knows that any argument (especially with the Internet as an audience) can be countered without regard of facts or proof.

You mean just like the war was started without regard of facts or proof, right?

I'm noticing a pattern with you Bush-haters. As long as there is some kind of snipe agaist Bush, WMD, Iraq, 2000 Election, etc. you are happy. Is that some kind of security blanket? Do you go to bed at night saying "good night, honey. Where's the WMD?"

Stop whining and answer the question!

Red, I'm not whining. I'm sharing an observation. You want me to answer his question? OK, the answer is no, that is not what I mean.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: InfectedMushroom

No, I can't. Because regardless of what I write, you will a) not believe it and b) do not have an open mind about this. So, even if painstakingly write out thoughtful sentences for you, you can (and will, no doubt) pick them apart because everyone knows that any argument (especially with the Internet as an audience) can be countered without regard of facts or proof.

You mean just like the war was started without regard of facts or proof, right?

I'm noticing a pattern with you Bush-haters. As long as there is some kind of snipe agaist Bush, WMD, Iraq, 2000 Election, etc. you are happy. Is that some kind of security blanket? Do you go to bed at night saying "good night, honey. Where's the WMD?"

hahahahahahahhahahahahhaha.
wait, hahahahahahhahahahahaahhaahaha

that was funny.

does it make you feel safer knowing soldiers and civilians are dieing every day in iraq for a war that was brought on by lies?

and don't pressume i don't like bush or republicans. i don't like their policies just like i didn't like clinton going into bosnia.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I'm noticing a pattern with you Bush-haters. As long as there is some kind of snipe agaist Bush, WMD, Iraq, 2000 Election, etc. you are happy. Is that some kind of security blanket? Do you go to bed at night saying "good night, honey. Where's the WMD?"

Not to hijack my own thread . . . but didn't Bush "sell" his war by sending people to bed at night with the thought, "my God, Honey . . . we must stop Saddam, Al Qaeda, and their WMD!?"

That's how he sold me on it. I believed him when he said that Saddam had vast Stockpiles of WMD's, Direct links to Al Qaeda and was working on a Nuclear Weapons program. Oh well, I guess I deserve it for believing him.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I'm noticing a pattern with you Bush-haters. As long as there is some kind of snipe agaist Bush, WMD, Iraq, 2000 Election, etc. you are happy. Is that some kind of security blanket? Do you go to bed at night saying "good night, honey. Where's the WMD?"

Not to hijack my own thread . . . but didn't Bush "sell" his war by sending people to bed at night with the thought, "my God, Honey . . . we must stop Saddam, Al Qaeda, and their WMD!?"

Not me and I think not a lot of people, judging from the polls I've seen about support for the war and not caring about whether WMDs are found or not.

Personally, I thought going after Saddam would help in the WoT, because Saddam encourages terrorism by providing $10k checks to suicide bomber's families in Palestine. Stopping him is a step in the GLOBAL WoT. I am disappointed they haven't found the WMDs and Bush will have to deal with that issue pretty soon, but it's not only about WMDs.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I'm noticing a pattern with you Bush-haters. As long as there is some kind of snipe agaist Bush, WMD, Iraq, 2000 Election, etc. you are happy. Is that some kind of security blanket? Do you go to bed at night saying "good night, honey. Where's the WMD?"

Not to hijack my own thread . . . but didn't Bush "sell" his war by sending people to bed at night with the thought, "my God, Honey . . . we must stop Saddam, Al Qaeda, and their WMD!?"

Not me and I think not a lot of people, judging from the polls I've seen about support for the war and not caring about whether WMDs are found or not.

Personally, I thought going after Saddam would help in the WoT, because Saddam encourages terrorism by providing $10k checks to suicide bomber's families in Palestine. Stopping him is a step in the GLOBAL WoT. I am disappointed they haven't found the WMDs and Bush will have to deal with that issue pretty soon, but it's not only about WMDs.

That's not what Bush said. Of course I believe you now that it wasn't about WMD's in the first place. We should have known when the Dub loaded up his Administration with Neocon's, Former executives from Haliburton and that fanatic Asscrack.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I'm noticing a pattern with you Bush-haters. As long as there is some kind of snipe agaist Bush, WMD, Iraq, 2000 Election, etc. you are happy. Is that some kind of security blanket? Do you go to bed at night saying "good night, honey. Where's the WMD?"

Not to hijack my own thread . . . but didn't Bush "sell" his war by sending people to bed at night with the thought, "my God, Honey . . . we must stop Saddam, Al Qaeda, and their WMD!?"

Not me and I think not a lot of people, judging from the polls I've seen about support for the war and not caring about whether WMDs are found or not.

Personally, I thought going after Saddam would help in the WoT, because Saddam encourages terrorism by providing $10k checks to suicide bomber's families in Palestine. Stopping him is a step in the GLOBAL WoT. I am disappointed they haven't found the WMDs and Bush will have to deal with that issue pretty soon, but it's not only about WMDs.

That's not what Bush said. Of course I believe you now that it wasn't about WMD's in the first place. We should have known when the Dub loaded up his Administration with Neocon's, Former executives from Haliburton and that fanatic Asscrack.

Like I stated earlier and many, many times in other threads, it's a waste of energy to discuss this with people like you because you jump all over the place and make personal attacks (not to me this time, though, only to Ashcroft). I mean, do you honestly want a discussion or just a bashing session?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I'm noticing a pattern with you Bush-haters. As long as there is some kind of snipe agaist Bush, WMD, Iraq, 2000 Election, etc. you are happy. Is that some kind of security blanket? Do you go to bed at night saying "good night, honey. Where's the WMD?"

Not to hijack my own thread . . . but didn't Bush "sell" his war by sending people to bed at night with the thought, "my God, Honey . . . we must stop Saddam, Al Qaeda, and their WMD!?"

Not me and I think not a lot of people, judging from the polls I've seen about support for the war and not caring about whether WMDs are found or not.

Personally, I thought going after Saddam would help in the WoT, because Saddam encourages terrorism by providing $10k checks to suicide bomber's families in Palestine. Stopping him is a step in the GLOBAL WoT. I am disappointed they haven't found the WMDs and Bush will have to deal with that issue pretty soon, but it's not only about WMDs.

That's not what Bush said. Of course I believe you now that it wasn't about WMD's in the first place. We should have known when the Dub loaded up his Administration with Neocon's, Former executives from Haliburton and that fanatic Asscrack.

Like I stated earlier and many, many times in other threads, it's a waste of energy to discuss this with people like you because you jump all over the place and make personal attacks (not to me this time, though, only to Ashcroft). I mean, do you honestly want a discussion or just a bashing session?

Well being lied to tends to make me somewhat disgruntled. If you werd to use search the Archive of P&N back prior to the Invasion of Iraq you would see I supported it based on the BS that the Bush Administration fed us. Frankly I feel that I am perfectly justified to be upset about being hoodwinked along with many other Americans by our leader and he merry band of Neocons. Of course like most Americans I was flushed with Patriotism after the 9/11 attacks, our justified retaliaton into Afghanistan and didn't believe that our Leader would be so bold as to use that to deceive us. But according to some the ends justify the means. I guess having lived during the Viet Nam War under both LBJ and Nixon I should have known better than to give my blind trust to our Commander and Chief.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: miguel

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I'm noticing a pattern with you Bush-haters. As long as there is some kind of snipe agaist Bush, WMD, Iraq, 2000 Election, etc. you are happy. Is that some kind of security blanket? Do you go to bed at night saying "good night, honey. Where's the WMD?"

Not to hijack my own thread . . . but didn't Bush "sell" his war by sending people to bed at night with the thought, "my God, Honey . . . we must stop Saddam, Al Qaeda, and their WMD!?"

Not me and I think not a lot of people, judging from the polls I've seen about support for the war and not caring about whether WMDs are found or not.

Personally, I thought going after Saddam would help in the WoT, because Saddam encourages terrorism by providing $10k checks to suicide bomber's families in Palestine. Stopping him is a step in the GLOBAL WoT. I am disappointed they haven't found the WMDs and Bush will have to deal with that issue pretty soon, but it's not only about WMDs.

That's not what Bush said. Of course I believe you now that it wasn't about WMD's in the first place. We should have known when the Dub loaded up his Administration with Neocon's, Former executives from Haliburton and that fanatic Asscrack.

Like I stated earlier and many, many times in other threads, it's a waste of energy to discuss this with people like you because you jump all over the place and make personal attacks (not to me this time, though, only to Ashcroft). I mean, do you honestly want a discussion or just a bashing session?

Well being lied to tends to make me somewhat disgruntled. If you werd to use search the Archive of P&N back prior to the Invasion of Iraq you would see I supported it based on the BS that the Bush Administration fed us. Frankly I feel that I am perfectly justified to be upset about being hoodwinked along with many other Americans by our leader and he merry band of Neocons. Of course like most Americans I was flushed with Patriotism after the 9/11 attacks, our justified retaliaton into Afghanistan and didn't believe that our Leader would be so bold as to use that to deceive us. But according to some the ends justify the means. I guess having lived during the Viet Nam War under both LBJ and Nixon I should have known better than to give my blind trust to our Commander and Chief.

Just so I have a complete picture: What exactly is Bush's big plan? Give me specifics of what you think he is trying to accomplish.