Which do you fear more?

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: TallBill
You should put "killed in iraq" on the list. More people since Sep 10th, 2001 have died from terrorism then killed in iraq.

Uh...links?

Don't forget, the US invasion has killed at least 30,000 Iraqis. Not to mention 2,170 American soldiers and about 100 from the UK.

http://www.solcomhouse.com/Worldtradecenter.htm - 3020 dead

Thats just on 9/11. And Im only counting Americans of course. You realize that the 30,000 Iraqi's are all not just innocent civilians right?

Just saying, one attack got 3,000 people in one day.

Heck, June 6th, 1944. Lost about 10,000 soldiers in one day. Thats 10% of the landing force, in one day. We've lost less then 1% over 3 years.

You said, and I quote, "More people since Sep 10th, 2001 have died from terrorism then killed in iraq." Those are your words. Unless you're asserting that Iraqis are not people, your statement is false.

Your comment about D-Day is just irrelevant.

His statement kinda doesn't make sense since most of the people dying from terrorism are IN Iraq. I get what he's saying though.

 

[TallBill]

solcomhouse? WTF is that?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/22/wtc.identifications/
2,749 dead at the WTC


Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Min 27592

Max 31115

Given that includes Iraqi security forces, let's remove those to find out how many civilians were killed (well, a smattering of gov't employees/politicians):
3,844 leaves a range of 23,748 - 27,271 (10x the number killed at the WTC)


D-Day? Not even close to being a valid analogy.

Maybe if you bothered reading my link, you'd see that they included the people who died in the airplanes. But you didn't.

Once again, we're referring to US casualties. OP intended it as US casualties. And once again, not just Iraqi Security forces are dying. Someone who is shooting at US soliders and gets blown up isn't quite the average "civilian" death.

And D-day was a totally but separate point that I threw out there just to make you guys troll some more. Once again, its just to show how few men we've lost. And once again, feel free to argue that they shouldn't have been there in the first place.

 

[conjur]

Insurgents'/terrorists' deaths are not included in the iraqbodycount.org study.

And, btw, who's the troll? Not I.

 

[tommywishbone]

I see people are mentioning 9/11 & Iraq in the same breath. Please turn around and receive your weggie.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: conjur
Insurgents'/terrorists' deaths are not included in the iraqbodycount.org study.

And, btw, who's the troll? Not I.

Pretty much everyone that comes into P&N.

Please, arguing on the internet is like the special olympics...

Oh, and most of the Iraqi civilian deaths are caused by Iraqi citizens. Sounds like the country was full of murderers and loonies to begin with. When Germany invaded Holland, the citizens there didn't start blowing each other up did they?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TallBill
OP created the thread in reference to the US. My post was entirely in reference to US citizens. Sorry I didn't break it down, the thread was 100% slanted toward US casualties from the start.

And I think the D-Day quote is relevant in a sense that people cry about how huge US losses are, when really they are very very tiny compared to past conflicts.

I understand the arguement that some think that they shouldn't be there in the first place, which is fine.

If you want to go there then you must include deaths from lung cancer, falling off of buildings, heart attacks, falling in the bathtub, etc. You can't cherry-pick one stat to try and prove some invalid point.

 

[TallBill]

The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%).


Heh, about 920,000 people died in 2000 from fairly simple stuff. If you need a source for those facts, copy/paste it into google.

 

[BlancoNino]

I heard that the real Iraqi civilian death count wasn't nearly that high and that it was only hyped by certain obvious anti-war European newspapers.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I heard that the real Iraqi civilian death count wasn't nearly that high and that it was only hyped by certain obvious anti-war European newspapers.

You never stop showing your ignorance, do you?

I believe you're referring to the Lancet study estimating 100,000 dead. If you'd bothered to click on the iraqbodycount.org link you'd find a full accounting of the dead they've calculated.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I heard that the real Iraqi civilian death count wasn't nearly that high and that it was only hyped by certain obvious anti-war European newspapers.

You never stop showing your ignorance, do you?

I believe you're referring to the Lancet study estimating 100,000 dead. If you'd bothered to click on the iraqbodycount.org link you'd find a full accounting of the dead they've calculated.

Just saying what I heard of course its not like I'll get any support on this message board anyway.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: BBond
George W. Bush winning a presidential election.

There's a 0% chance of that happening again.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I heard that the real Iraqi civilian death count wasn't nearly that high and that it was only hyped by certain obvious anti-war European newspapers.

You never stop showing your ignorance, do you?

I believe you're referring to the Lancet study estimating 100,000 dead. If you'd bothered to click on the iraqbodycount.org link you'd find a full accounting of the dead they've calculated.

Just saying what I heard of course its not like I'll get any support on this message board anyway.

Why do you think you're entitled to support here? Support yourself. Present facts and figures to support your position. If you can't, then perhaps you should give yourself a reality check and consider whether your position is wrong.

In my opinion, your problem, and the problem of so many like you, is you uncritically swallow every piece of nonsense spouted by blowhards and BushCo shills like Limbaugh and Fox. You never bother to verify their claims, and when people here present contradictory evidence, you just dig in your heels and keep chanting the talking points. You refuse to acknowledge anything that challenges your preconceived notions. It's called cognitive dissonance. The first step to curing it is questioning your own assumptions and beliefs.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I heard that the real Iraqi civilian death count wasn't nearly that high and that it was only hyped by certain obvious anti-war European newspapers.

You never stop showing your ignorance, do you?

I believe you're referring to the Lancet study estimating 100,000 dead. If you'd bothered to click on the iraqbodycount.org link you'd find a full accounting of the dead they've calculated.

Just saying what I heard of course its not like I'll get any support on this message board anyway.

Typical Rush-bot. Get their opinions handed to them over the radio and via talking point memos.

Here's a thought: Think for yourself. Do some research. There are these things called "the internets" and you can, like, search for, like news and stuff.


Oh, and when we put links in our posts? Those are meant for you to click and actually read the articles at said links. Helps you to keep up.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: raildogg
Well, just because you seem to disagree doesn't mean that I am not using my brain. It's obviously a bit different than what is considered mainstream on this forum. There is a difference between a natural disaster and a terrorist strike. Any rational human being will realize this. We have the ability to limit the harm these people can do to us. We spend money to prevent the risk from a natural disaster, and we must do the same to defend against and fight terrorism.
[ ... ]
You're missing the point. Eating McDs every day will harm your health. But that is a choice that you make. A terrorist that wants to kill you gives you no choice. It is up to you to let him get away or bring him or her to justice.

I notice that you have not addressed the most glaring counter-example to your position: driving or riding in a motor vehicle. It is the most dangerous item on the list, it is not a natural disaster, and one does not have an easy choice for avoiding dangerous drivers.

• "Driving is far and away the single most dangerous thing most of us do, yet most people are far too casual about it. I've always been struck by the irony -- or perhaps lunacy is a better word for it -- of the people who sheepishly accept all sorts of draconian measures offering feeble protection against terrorism, yet would never accept even minor steps to improve driving safety."

If it's really about mitigating risk and not about creating fear, why are BushCo's attentions overwhlmingly focused on terrorism instead of motorist safety?

Any of the pro-Bush night crew willing to address this? Motor vehicle "accidents" kill ~40,000 people per year (IIRC), and are usually preventable, i.e., they are due to human error rather than equipment failures, which is why professional investigators usually refer to them as "crashes" or "incidents" rather than "accidents".

 

[judasmachine]

traffic accident. it's the most imminent danger to most people worldwide. lightning while it kills many is relatively easy to avoid, and the terrorists coming to semi rural texas is possible however unlikely any time soon, and food bourne illness is probably right behind an auto accident in likelyhood, well as far as bacholism and things of that nature go. but in summation, i think the most imminent danger to me and mine are by far auto accidents.

 

[BlancoNino]

Honestly, I listen to an average of about 1-2 hours of Rush Limbaugh a week. Maybe even a month.

I honestly do think for myself, and it's really tough to do considering most of my peers (even in a slightly right-leaning town) disagree with me. What I'm trying to say is each day I am exposed to way more views and talking-points that are contradictory to mine, so I have to think for myself. I don't think joining this message board has helped to even things up either.

As far as this thread goes. Here's another question. Were people living in the United States more likely to die from the Germans than the things mentioned in the original post?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Honestly, I listen to an average of about 1-2 hours of Rush Limbaugh a week. Maybe even a month.

I honestly do think for myself

The first two sentences in this post can't possibly go together! :laugh:

Anyone who listens to the druggie Rush is full of crap! :laugh:

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Honestly, I listen to an average of about 1-2 hours of Rush Limbaugh a week. Maybe even a month.

I honestly do think for myself, and it's really tough to do considering most of my peers (even in a slightly right-leaning town) disagree with me. What I'm trying to say is each day I am exposed to way more views and talking-points that are contradictory to mine, so I have to think for myself. I don't think joining this message board has helped to even things up either.

As far as this thread goes. Here's another question. Were people living in the United States more likely to die from the Germans than the things mentioned in the original post?

I think you're on the right track as far as exposing yourself to opposing viewpoints, just don't forget to turn the BS detector on those that agree with you.

 

[BlancoNino]

I think you're on the right track as far as exposing yourself to opposing viewpoints, just don't forget to turn the BS detector on those that agree with you.

Would you believe that I am really not a fan of George Bush?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I think you're on the right track as far as exposing yourself to opposing viewpoints, just don't forget to turn the BS detector on those that agree with you.

Would you believe that I am really not a fan of George Bush?

Buwhahahahahah! :laugh:

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I think you're on the right track as far as exposing yourself to opposing viewpoints, just don't forget to turn the BS detector on those that agree with you.

Would you believe that I am really not a fan of George Bush?

Buwhahahahahah! :laugh:

What's a conservative like me to like about somebody who tries to fight a flip-flop politically correct war, tightens security measures to try and prevent terrorism while leaving the borders to our country wide open, and has done little to reform spending on non-military government?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I think you're on the right track as far as exposing yourself to opposing viewpoints, just don't forget to turn the BS detector on those that agree with you.

Would you believe that I am really not a fan of George Bush?

Buwhahahahahah! :laugh:

What's a conservative like me to like about somebody who tries to fight a flip-flop politically correct war, tightens security measures to try and prevent terrorism while leaving the borders to our country wide open, and has done little to reform spending on non-military government?

If you voted for him, it's sheeple time! :laugh:

 

[BlancoNino]

If you voted for him, it's sheeple time! :laugh:

Okay, last off-topic post. Want to know why I voted for him?

Kerry's proposed social spending increases. :thumbsdown:

Pulling troops out of Iraq. :thumbsdown:

Unfair tax burden on wealthy (even though I am dirt poor).

Lesser of two evils? Maybe. I liked Bush's proposal on private accounts for social security too.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

If you voted for him, it's sheeple time! :laugh:

Okay, last off-topic post. Want to know why I voted for him?

Kerry's proposed social spending increases. :thumbsdown:

Pulling troops out of Iraq. :thumbsdown:

Unfair tax burden on wealthy (even though I am dirt poor).

Lesser of two evils? Maybe. I liked Bush's proposal on private accounts for social security too.

And lets see...

Bush has increase spending in ALL areas....

Bush has started pulling troops out (I don't recall Kerry saying a complete one step pullout)

I, like most people, don't give a fvck if wealthy people pay more than I do as long as I don't have to pay more to lower their burden. If you want to lower spending to cut their taxes, fine, but how about getting the deficit under control first, eh?

Bush is the pure evil. A complete bastard thorugh and through. I didn't like Kerry but a far better choice than the bastard we have now! :roll:


Oh, and I partially liked Bush's plan on SS, but I wanted full control of ALL of MY money. I'll sign away my future SS benefits if I can take MY 6.4% and invest as I see fit!

I also like *gulp* Bush's idea of lifetime savings accounts - You can add $5,000 per year (after tax money) but all gains are completely tax free and you can withdrawl them at will and for any purpose you want - no restrictions.

 

[AragornTK]

ok... if all republicans are rush bots and foxnews fan boys... what about the democrats out there? you guys just all spontaneously have the exact same thoughts and claim them as being completely original? that would be impossible, since all democrats have such big ego's you guys would be fighting amongst yourselves over who came up with what