Polls are open...

If you pray now is the time to pray, if you don't do whatever it is you do please... It is going to be a bloody day for both sides I feel.

[Revalos]

If there's one thing we all should have learned from 9/11 its that the terrorists look for the times and places we least expect, not the times and places with the most scrutiny and security.

Ever wonder why the lowest color the homeland security system has ever been at is yellow? Because a lot of people believe if we ever go to green (why the hell is there a blue below that? When is that? When there are no more terrorists on the planet?) that's the signal for the terrorists to launch another attack.

I expect the same old bombings/killings today as any other day in Iraq, except that the media will harp on them tremendously, probably giving some two-bit jihadist organization some global broadcasting time, and more power to recruit.

Why anyone cares about this idiotic election is beyond me. Everyone knows whomever gets elected will probably be corrupt, then two years later a civil war erupts or Iran invades and we'll be right back in there again, installing a new government.

Its our little sand pile we can play with our fancy military hardware in so that we'll have tried and tested equipment whenever China decides to take back Taiwan.

Ok...that was a bit of a rant...sorry.

You're theory is already proven wrong I am sad to say

[Keller]

Here's my theory ...


My friends and I are running a betting pool for the exact date that the new Iraqi leader will be assasinated. $5/day. We've collected over $500 now. The winner will get 70% of the booty, 15% going to the closest on either side of her.

As far as the election goes -- it had to happen sometime. I can only hope more kids don't get killed for this song and dance we call nation building, neo-con style.

[Nakiro]

Everythings going to be alright.

[Alarke]

Ya know... for as against this as so many people seem to be, there aren't a whole lot of other choices at this point. The election had to happen. Yeah, it's gonna be hell for many many years, but if this group of 275 manages to write a reasonably nondiscriminate constitution, things may begin to look up in a couple years. There are some very amazing things that have already happened. The fact that 1/3 of the candidates were required to be female is an incredible feat. Less than a year ago women there were afraid to leave their homes because of how they were treated, now they are being given the option to set up a national government for their state.

No one said this idea was perfect, but it is all we have for now. No, I'm not over in Iraq dealing with all the death, but I send all of my support and prayers with anyone helping from any nation. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs on this situation, but I believe we are beginning to make progress. Eventually we will be able to set up some form of a liberal constitutionalism democracy.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Alarke
Ya know... for as against this as so many people seem to be, there aren't a whole lot of other choices at this point. The election had to happen. Yeah, it's gonna be hell for many many years, but if this group of 275 manages to write a reasonably nondiscriminate constitution, things may begin to look up in a couple years. There are some very amazing things that have already happened. The fact that 1/3 of the candidates were required to be female is an incredible feat. Less than a year ago women there were afraid to leave their homes because of how they were treated, now they are being given the option to set up a national government for their state.

No one said this idea was perfect, but it is all we have for now. No, I'm not over in Iraq dealing with all the death, but I send all of my support and prayers with anyone helping from any nation. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs on this situation, but I believe we are beginning to make progress. Eventually we will be able to set up some form of a liberal constitutionalism democracy.

I don't think anyone with half a brain thinks we should not continue the course that's been set. Some people are upset that the course was chosen. We can't change that now.

But at the same time I don't think this is going to end well, any time soon. We've had a de facto pre-emptive program for regime chance for years through the Truman Doctrine and the track record is not too good. I don't know that this administration, who refuses to accept any criticism, constructive or otherwise, has the right formula. I don't know. I guess they've just not impressed me yet.

72% turn out

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Keller
Here's my theory ...


My friends and I are running a betting pool for the exact date that the new Iraqi leader will be assasinated. $5/day. We've collected over $500 now. The winner will get 70% of the booty, 15% going to the closest on either side of her.

As far as the election goes -- it had to happen sometime. I can only hope more kids don't get killed for this song and dance we call nation building, neo-con style.

You have a tremendous amount of compassion. Only cool people would bet on when another person is going to be murdered.

Then you become a hypocrite in the next sentence, where you say you hope more kids don't get killed.

Its seems that it ended up far better than expcected 72% of registered voters... America would flip if 50% turned out.

[Miss X]

Yeah seriously Keller, what you are doing is disgusting and yet as SHM said, you then claim to be worried about more children dying? LOL, forgive me if I don't believe you have one single ounce of care/compassion for anyone in Iraq.

worth it?

"I cannot describe what I am seeing. It is incredible. This is a vote for the future, for the children, for the rule of law, for humanity, for love," Alaa al-Tamimi told Reuters.

"This is a wedding for all Iraqis. I congratulate all Iraqis on their newfound freedom and democracy," said Jaida Hamza, dressed in a black Islamic veil that also hid her face.

"Samir Hassan, 32, who lost his leg in a car bomb blast in October, was determined to vote. "I would have crawled here if I had to. I don't want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me. Today I am voting for peace," he said."

[Edited on 1-30-2005 by Dave]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Dave
worth it?

"I cannot describe what I am seeing. It is incredible. This is a vote for the future, for the children, for the rule of law, for humanity, for love," Alaa al-Tamimi told Reuters.

"This is a wedding for all Iraqis. I congratulate all Iraqis on their newfound freedom and democracy," said Jaida Hamza, dressed in a black Islamic veil that also hid her face.

"Samir Hassan, 32, who lost his leg in a car bomb blast in October, was determined to vote. "I would have crawled here if I had to. I don't want terrorists to kill other Iraqis like they tried to kill me. Today I am voting for peace," he said."

Now it remains to be seen if this is indeed a government for the Iraqi people or a puppet for the US administration.

I certainly do hope that the people interviewed were translated correctly, actually interviewed, and not the group of "photo-op" citizens we like to use for choice moral boosting endeavors.

It was from a Reuters.

[Tsa`ah]

And?

[Makkah]

<<72% turn out >>

With attacks only killing ~25 and wounding up to 70... I'm glad to see Dave was wrong.

I am too Makkah

[Hulkein]

Great news.

Revised number I hear is something like 60%, still an amazing turnout.

[Parkbandit]

I wonder how many of us would go out to vote if we were threatened by car bombs.

Great turnout for a country that doesn't want Democracy and freedom.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I wonder how many of us would go out to vote if we were threatened by car bombs.Good question. Last semester I had a woman from Isreal in my class. She talked about 911 as if it were something we should just get over and move on with our lives about. We were shocked. Her reasoning was from personal experiences while living in Isreal. One day they were sitting around watching a movie and had a friend run to the ATM to get cash so they could order a pizza. Not less than a minute later they heard a huge bomb go off outside and simply waited around to see if their friend would return. He did and they called their friends and family to make sure everyone was ok, ordered their pizza and went on with watching their movie as if nothing had happened. 45 minutes later their pizza arrived. This was common and something they'd grown used to dealing with, she said. I was like... umm wow, that's different.

Great turnout for a country that doesn't want Democracy and freedom. As a non-supporter of the war I have to agree that it seemed to exceed expectations.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV
Great turnout for a country that doesn't want Democracy and freedom. As a non-supporter of the war I have to agree that it seemed to exceed expectations.

Guess who was on yesterday's news talk shows.. saying "Don't hype the election results". Good ol' John Kerry.

I wonder... if the turnout was more like 25-30%.. would these same "Don't hype the results" people be on these same shows hyping the "bad news"? "I told you that Iraq was a mess and we should never have been there and there were never WMDs there.. I knew it all along".

:rolleyes:

[Wezas]

While I'm not sure if I agree with his statement - it is good to see that John Kerry is still involved in the media and with his voters.

He didn't just go grizzly Adams like Gore and dissappear into the crowd.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Guess who was on yesterday's news talk shows.. saying "Don't hype the election results". Good ol' John Kerry.

I wonder... if the turnout was more like 25-30%.. would these same "Don't hype the results" people be on these same shows hyping the "bad news"? "I told you that Iraq was a mess and we should never have been there and there were never WMDs there.. I knew it all along".

:rolleyes: I can't speak for John Kerry or say that I agree with his sentiments. I'm just glad it went better than expected.

[xtc]

How many voters aren't registered? How many can't register because they live in areas not controlled by Americans? That number of 60% registered voters includes Iraqi's living in America, Canada and England who registered to vote. A more interesting number would be the percentage of people who voted in Iraq as a percentage of the total population.

However that said, I hope these poor people get a chance at a real democracy, not likely but possible. I predict this country will plunge into civil war, failing that the Shiites will rule and implement Sharia law and strike an alliance with Iran. Shame as they have lost enough lives due to Dubbya.


[Edited on 1-31-2005 by xtc]

[CrystalTears]

Iraq lost plenty before Dubbya too.

Far more infact CT.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

Originally posted by Keller
Here's my theory ...


My friends and I are running a betting pool for the exact date that the new Iraqi leader will be assasinated. $5/day. We've collected over $500 now. The winner will get 70% of the booty, 15% going to the closest on either side of her.

As far as the election goes -- it had to happen sometime. I can only hope more kids don't get killed for this song and dance we call nation building, neo-con style.

You have a tremendous amount of compassion. Only cool people would bet on when another person is going to be murdered.

Then you become a hypocrite in the next sentence, where you say you hope more kids don't get killed.

Well, we were going to have a love-in and smoke pot and pop beans, but you convinced me that violence solves everything.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Miss X
Yeah seriously Keller, what you are doing is disgusting and yet as SHM said, you then claim to be worried about more children dying? LOL, forgive me if I don't believe you have one single ounce of care/compassion for anyone in Iraq.

You're forgiven.

Sorry if my friends and I are a bit cynical about the election of a dead man. Sorry if we like to give mutual incentive to each other to keep up with what's going on.

I don't really give a fuck what you believe or don't believe about my feelings (which is a really strange thing for you to even consider), but you're still forgiven, only because you wanted it.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DeV
Great turnout for a country that doesn't want Democracy and freedom. As a non-supporter of the war I have to agree that it seemed to exceed expectations.

Guess who was on yesterday's news talk shows.. saying "Don't hype the election results". Good ol' John Kerry.

I wonder... if the turnout was more like 25-30%.. would these same "Don't hype the results" people be on these same shows hyping the "bad news"? "I told you that Iraq was a mess and we should never have been there and there were never WMDs there.. I knew it all along".

:rolleyes:

To be sure, politicians are douches. They will say/do anything that will further their careers. However, nation building under the Truman Doctrine never worked too well. Let's give this fledgling democracy a few more elections before we do a cost/benefit analysis to decide whether it was worth our money to provide regime change for a country who could not provide it themselves.

[xtc]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Iraq lost plenty before Dubbya too.

100 000 civilians in 2 years before Dubbya? I think not.

[Nieninque]

You dont count the Kurds that were being slaughtered then?

And Dave, how many exactly?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Nieninque
You dont count the Kurds that were being slaughtered then?

And Dave, how many exactly?

US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds.

ARTICLE HERE (http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm)

[Back]

When the WMD thing fell through, everything this Administration has said/says becomes suspect.

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Iraq lost plenty before Dubbya too.

100 000 civilians in 2 years before Dubbya? I think not.


There are no numbers that are trustworty that say 100,000.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Nieninque
You dont count the Kurds that were being slaughtered then?

And Dave, how many exactly?

US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds.

ARTICLE HERE (http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm)

Sorry.. I'm more apt to believe even CBS News before I believe anything from that rinkydink website called "India Times". Did you even look around that website? You can't be seriously believing that reporting.. can you?

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Sorry.. I'm more apt to believe even CBS News before I believe anything from that rinkydink website called "India Times". Did you even look around that website? You can't be seriously believing that reporting.. can you?

Like we believed the WMD story? The Administration has the validity on the level of the National Enquierer.

Here we go again. “Don’t trust any source. We have the answers.”

[Edited on 2-1-2005 by Backlash]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Nieninque
You dont count the Kurds that were being slaughtered then?

And Dave, how many exactly?


The website wasn't called the India Times. Regardless of what else was on that website the article was written by the India Times. India being a democracy with freedon of the press and history of not getting along with Islamic nations. Regardless
US Army War College (USAWC) undertook a study of the use of chemical weapons by Iran and Iraq in order to better understand battlefield chemical warfare. They concluded that it was Iran and not Iraq that killed the Kurds.

ARTICLE HERE (http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/GaseousLies.htm)

Sorry.. I'm more apt to believe even CBS News before I believe anything from that rinkydink website called "India Times". Did you even look around that website? You can't be seriously believing that reporting.. can you?

The India Times is the name of the newspaper the article first appeared in. The website just posted the article. The India Times is a respectable paper published in a democracy. A democracy I might add that has a history of conflict with Islamic nations. The article was written by a professor of International Affairs at Marquette University, Milwaukee Regardless if the US Army War College did the study do you choose not to believe them?

So PB now you like CBS?



[Edited on 2-1-2005 by xtc]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Iraq lost plenty before Dubbya too.

100 000 civilians in 2 years before Dubbya? I think not.


There are no numbers that are trustworty that say 100,000.

I forgot this administration doesn't do and isn't interested in civilian body counts.

I know I sound like Tsa'ah but Dave do you believe all the bullshit they spoon feed you in the army?

100 000 civilians dead in Iraq (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1338749,00.html)



[Edited on 2-2-2005 by xtc]

[xtc]

For my friend PB.

This was written by former CIA analyst Stephen Pelletiere in The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/opinion/31PELL.html?ex=1107406800&en=f739f76a82662a7c&ei=5 070&oref=regi

Registration is required to read the NY Times article so I am reprinting it here.

A War Crime or an Act of War?
By STEPHEN C. PELLETIERE


ECHANICSBURG, Pa. — It was no surprise that President Bush, lacking smoking-gun evidence of Iraq's weapons programs, used his State of the Union address to re-emphasize the moral case for an invasion: "The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages, leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind or disfigured."
The accusation that Iraq has used chemical weapons against its citizens is a familiar part of the debate. The piece of hard evidence most frequently brought up concerns the gassing of Iraqi Kurds at the town of Halabja in March 1988, near the end of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war. President Bush himself has cited Iraq's "gassing its own people," specifically at Halabja, as a reason to topple Saddam Hussein.
But the truth is, all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story.
I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and as a professor at the Army War College from 1988 to 2000, I was privy to much of the classified material that flowed through Washington having to do with the Persian Gulf. In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target.

And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas.

The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.

These facts have long been in the public domain but, extraordinarily, as often as the Halabja affair is cited, they are rarely mentioned. A much-discussed article in The New Yorker last March did not make reference to the Defense Intelligence Agency report or consider that Iranian gas might have killed the Kurds. On the rare occasions the report is brought up, there is usually speculation, with no proof, that it was skewed out of American political favoritism toward Iraq in its war against Iran.

I am not trying to rehabilitate the character of Saddam Hussein. He has much to answer for in the area of human rights abuses. But accusing him of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct, because as far as the information we have goes, all of the cases where gas was used involved battles. These were tragedies of war. There may be justifications for invading Iraq, but Halabja is not one of them.

In fact, those who really feel that the disaster at Halabja has bearing on today might want to consider a different question: Why was Iran so keen on taking the town? A closer look may shed light on America's impetus to invade Iraq.

We are constantly reminded that Iraq has perhaps the world's largest reserves of oil. But in a regional and perhaps even geopolitical sense, it may be more important that Iraq has the most extensive river system in the Middle East. In addition to the Tigris and Euphrates, there are the Greater Zab and Lesser Zab rivers in the north of the country. Iraq was covered with irrigation works by the sixth century A.D., and was a granary for the region.
Before the Persian Gulf war, Iraq had built an impressive system of dams and river control projects, the largest being the Darbandikhan dam in the Kurdish area. And it was this dam the Iranians were aiming to take control of when they seized Halabja. In the 1990's there was much discussion over the construction of a so-called Peace Pipeline that would bring the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates south to the parched Gulf states and, by extension, Israel. No progress has been made on this, largely because of Iraqi intransigence. With Iraq in American hands, of course, all that could change

Thus America could alter the destiny of the Middle East in a way that probably could not be challenged for decades — not solely by controlling Iraq's oil, but by controlling its water. Even if America didn't occupy the country, once Mr. Hussein's Baath Party is driven from power, many lucrative opportunities would open up for American companies.

All that is needed to get us into war is one clear reason for acting, one that would be generally persuasive. But efforts to link the Iraqis directly to Osama bin Laden have proved inconclusive. Assertions that Iraq threatens its neighbors have also failed to create much resolve; in its present debilitated condition — thanks to United Nations sanctions — Iraq's conventional forces threaten no one.

well shit, here is a site that people have posted before...

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/


IBC response to the Lancet study estimating "100,000" Iraqi deaths

Some people have asked us why we have not increased our count to 100,000 in the light of the multiple media reports of the recent Lancet study [link] which claims this as a probable and conservative estimate of Iraqi casualties.

Iraq Body Count does not include casualty estimates or projections in its database. It only includes individual or cumulative deaths as directly reported by the media or tallied by official bodies (for instance, by hospitals, morgues and, in a few cases so far, NGOs), and subsequently reported in the media. In other words, each entry in the Iraq Body Count data base represents deaths which have actually been recorded by appropriate witnesses - not "possible" or even "probable" deaths.

The Lancet study's headline figure of "100,000" excess deaths is a probabilistic projection from a small number of reported deaths - most of them from aerial weaponry - in a sample of 988 households to the entire Iraqi population. Only those actual, war-related deaths could be included in our count. Because the researchers did not ask relatives whether the male deaths were military or civilian the civilian proportion in the sample is unknown (despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion", [link] the authors clearly state that "many" of the dead in their sample may have been combatants [P.7]). Iraq Body Count only includes reports where there are feasible methods of distinguishing military from civilian deaths (most of the uncertainty that remains in our own count - the difference between our reported Minimum and Maximum - arises from this issue). Our count is purely a civilian count.

One frequently cited misapprehension is that IBC "only can count deaths where journalists are present."[link] This is incorrect, and appears to arise from unfamiliarity with the variety of sources which the media may report and IBC has used. These sources include hospital and morgue officials giving totals for specific incidents or time periods, totals which in turn have sometimes been integrated into overall tolls of deaths and injuries for entire regions of Iraq as collated by central agencies such as the Iraqi Health Ministry (see KRT 25th September 2004 [link]); these are all carefully separated from more "direct" as well as duplicate media reporting before being added to IBC's database. The Lancet's survey data was itself gathered without journalists being present, and yet is widely reported in the press. Were the Lancet study a count and not a projection, it too could after appropriate analysis become part of the IBC database. Little-known but impeccably reported death tolls in fact constitute the larger part of IBC's numbers (as can be seen by sorting IBC's database by size of entry). We believe that such counts - when freely conducted and without official interference - have the potential to far exceed the accuracy and comprehensiveness even of local press reporting. It is after all the job of morgues and hospitals to maintain such records, and not the media's, who simply report their findings.

We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording. It is no part of our practice, at least as far as our published totals are concerned, to make any prediction or projection about what the "unseen" number of deaths might have been. This total can only be established to our satisfaction by a comprehensive count carried out by the Iraqi government, or other organisation with national or transnational authority.

Others have asked us to comment on whether the Lancet report's headline figure of 100,000 is a credible estimate. At present our resources are focused on our own ongoing work, not assessing the work of others. At an earlier stage, we did indeed provide an assessment of other counting projects [link], to provide what clarity we could for better public understanding of the issues involved. In that instance the projects under review were similar to ours, in that they attempted to amass data on actual deaths (and some of their findings have subsequently been integrated into our own count). Nonetheless, the Lancet's estimate of 100,000 deaths - which is on the scale of the death toll from Hiroshima - has, if it is accurate, such serious implications that we may return to the subject in greater detail in the near future. As of this writing we are more concerned with renewed air and ground attacks on Falluja, which last April left over 800 Iraqis dead, some 600 of them civilians (see previous IBC press release below).

It may already be noted, however, that Iraq Body Count, like the Lancet study, doesn't simply report all deaths in Iraq (people obviously die from various causes all the time) but excess deaths that can be associated directly with the military intervention and occupation of the country. In doing this, and via different paths, both studies have arrived at one conclusion which is not up for serious debate: the number of deaths from violence has skyrocketed since the war was launched (see IBC Press Release September 23rd 2003 [link]; also AP 24th May 2004 [graphic chart]).

We also recognise the bravery of the investigators who carried out the Lancet survey on the ground, and support the call for larger and more authoritative investigations with the full support of the coalition and other official bodies.

Finally, we reject any attempt, by pro-war governments and others, to minimise the seriousness of deaths so far recorded by comparing them to higher figures, be they of deaths under Saddam's regime, or in other much larger-scale wars. Amnesty International, which criticized and drew attention to the brutality of the Saddam Hussein regime long before the governments which launched the 2003 attack on Iraq, estimated that violent deaths attributable to Saddam's government numbered at most in the hundreds during the years immediately leading up to 2003. Those wishing to make the "more lives ultimately saved" argument will need to make their comparisons with the number of civilians likely to have been killed had Saddam Hussein's reign continued into 2003-2004, not in comparison to the number of deaths for which he was responsible in the 1980s and early 1990s, or to casualty figures during WWII.

having looked into the lancet study a bit more the results they received ended up being between 8,000 and 194,000 deaths and by splitting the difference they came up with the number 100,000

[Warriorbird]

Not that, you know, the administration would pay reporters or anything. Or do it three times, no less.

Who cares about numbers.

It is a documented fact that our great King George II prayed to God before declaring this necessary insurgency on the Iraqis, therefor the small number of 100,000 who died will have 72 virgins, the gates of heaven open for them and will reach enlightenment all at the same time. What a fine ruler of the free-world we have.

100,000 civilians did not die. The study is for between 8,000 and 194,000 dead I err on the lower side, others like Warriorbird will go towards the 194,000. People die. That is the way war works. The arms we use are very precise, though innocent people in the area will die because an explosion is and indiscriminant killer, the amount of 100,000 is unlikely.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by xtc
I know I sound like Tsa'ah but Dave do you all the bullshit they spoon feed you in the army?

Sad sad attempt.

Immitated, but never duplicated.

There is no question about life under the thumb of Sadam. To me there isn't a question about the heavy loss the people of Iraq have been dealt by the Bush squad. I can only hope that when the dust settles things will indeed be better.

The bush squad? The bush squad over there are people like your damn brother who is fighting in the war. 100,000 dead means our troops have killed 100,000 people, and as that report would make it seem, most of which are innocent.

I know that our men and women over there, including your brother, are able to do a far better job than that.


In most cases (Japan excluded) the president is not in charge of the who, what, where, why, when of attacks. The soldiers on the ground, those collection the information, those analyzing the information, those in command, and those kicking in the doors are the ones doing the work. You are calling all of them indiscriminate killers. Let your hate for the president not shadow your judgment for a moment.

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by Dave]

Originally posted by Dave
The bush squad? The bush squad over there are people like your damn brother who is fighting in the war. 100,000 dead means our troops have killed 100,000 people, and as that report would make it seem, most of which are innocent.

I know that our men and women over there, including your brother, are able to do a far better job than that.


In most cases (Japan excluded) the president is not in charge of the who, what, where, why, when of attacks. The soldiers on the ground, those collection the information, those analyzing the information, those in command, and those kicking in the doors are the ones doing the work. You are calling all of them indiscriminate killers. Let your hate for the president not shadow your judgment for a moment.

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by Dave]

I need a way to say baby-killers but that is *SO* Vietnam era... :thinking:

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Dave
The bush squad? The bush squad over there are people like your damn brother who is fighting in the war. 100,000 dead means our troops have killed 100,000 people, and as that report would make it seem, most of which are innocent.

I know that our men and women over there, including your brother, are able to do a far better job than that.

Don't even assume you can speak on behalf of my brothers chump.

The Bush squad are the people giving the orders, the people that put us in War.

Have some propaganda, a smile, and shut the fuck up.

Learn the military command structure and responsibilities of those in charge.

Im not speaking on behalf of your brother, I am simply pointing out the idiocy of your statement and your own hate clouded judgment.

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell

I need a way to say baby-killers but that is *SO* Vietnam era... :thinking:

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

People like John Kerry and the cunt Fonda are the reason people looked at our troops that way back then, more lies.

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell

I need a way to say baby-killers but that is *SO* Vietnam era... :thinking:

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by Stanley Burrell]

People like John Kerry and the cunt Fonda are the reason people looked at our troops that way back then, more lies.

You are right again, not a single infant was harmed during the making of operation invade Iraq.

We targetted Women, Children, Men, but some how miraculously avoided bombing babies from B52s!!!

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Dave
Learn the military command structure and responsibilities of those in charge.

Im not speaking on behalf of your brother, I am simply pointing out the idiocy of your statement and your own hate clouded judgment.

I'm fully aware of the chain of command. The president is indeed the CIC.

Back to school for you.

I did not say that Stan, I already said innocent people have died, and people include children and babies.

The idea that we target them on the other hand is wrong.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Dave
People like John Kerry and the cunt Fonda are the reason people looked at our troops that way back then, more lies.

Did your dad ever get drunk and tell you about the shit he did, was ordered to do, and witnessed in Nam?

I didn't think so.

Fuck off now.

Originally posted by Dave
I did not say that Stan, I already said innocent people have died, and people include children and babies.

The idea that we target them on the other hand is wrong.

Oh okay, and by counter-insurgency, you mean you only target the "Bad-Iraqis" draped in the "I hate America" Turbans so that they're obvious targets, not the innocent people that we have never, ever targetted before..?

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Dave
Learn the military command structure and responsibilities of those in charge.

Im not speaking on behalf of your brother, I am simply pointing out the idiocy of your statement and your own hate clouded judgment.

I'm fully aware of the chain of command. The president is indeed the CIC.

Back to school for you.

very good now do you think that of the hundreds of raids we do a night and day over there he gives them a go or no go? considering he has limited to no Strategic battlefield experience?

No, I am pretty sure its the guys down on the ground who know exactly what is going on, have the time to read all of the Intelligence reports that go up from the ground level that relate to their area of operations.
But hell that's just my experience. I wonder when I will get my next set of orders directly from President Bush, since he seems to have his hands in everything that goes on in the military. Screw the Generals out there, what use are they, Bush makes all the decisions.

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell

Originally posted by Dave
I did not say that Stan, I already said innocent people have died, and people include children and babies.

The idea that we target them on the other hand is wrong.

Oh okay, and by counter-insurgency, you mean you only target the "Bad-Iraqis" draped in the "I hate America" Turbans so that they're obvious targets, not the innocent people that we have never, ever targetted before..?

There are rules of engagment, and laws of warfare that do a good job to stop that from happening.

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by Dave
People like John Kerry and the cunt Fonda are the reason people looked at our troops that way back then, more lies.

Did your dad ever get drunk and tell you about the shit he did, was ordered to do, and witnessed in Nam?

I didn't think so.

Fuck off now.


My dad was over in Nam, and yeah he told me about a lot of stuff that went on, no baby killing im afraid.

Perhaps you should not think anymore, cause ya tend to be wrong.

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by Dave]

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Dave
very good now do you think that of the hundreds of raids we do a night and day over there he gives them a go or no go? considering he has limited to no Strategic battlefield experience?

No, I am pretty sure its the guys down on the ground who know exactly what is going on, have the time to read all of the Intelligence reports that go up from the ground level that relate to their area of operations.
But hell that's just my experience. I wonder when I will get my next set of orders directly from President Bush, since he seems to have his hands in everything that goes on in the military. Screw the Generals out there, what use are they, Bush makes all the decisions.

Dave, with all of your bull shit symantics, there is one ... and only one order that counts. The order of the CIC.

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Stanley Burrell

Originally posted by Dave
I did not say that Stan, I already said innocent people have died, and people include children and babies.

The idea that we target them on the other hand is wrong.

Oh okay, and by counter-insurgency, you mean you only target the "Bad-Iraqis" draped in the "I hate America" Turbans so that they're obvious targets, not the innocent people that we have never, ever targetted before..?

There are rules of engagment, and laws of warfare that do a good job to stop that from happening.

And I find it funny that when a small incident of foul-play surfaces in a place like the Abu Ghairab prison, everyone goes all horse-shit over it, but we have the Green Berets who are explicitly trained in counter insurgency (a.k.a. Torture) and not a word goes mentioned about their techniques and what rules of engagement and laws of warfare they willingly choose to disobey. :?:

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Dave
My dad was over in Nam, and yeah he told me about a lot of stuff that went on, no baby killing im afraid.

He was either lucky, not saying, dishonest, or a paper pusher.

Unless you're calling my father a liar, unless you're calling thousands of vets liars ... I would say you're pretty clueless to claim the shit didn't happen.

Screw the Generals out there, what use are they, Bush makes all the decisions.

Guess one middle-eastern country (Hint: Next to Iran) that U.S. generals would NOT have been if it weren't for the orders of the CIC? :duh:

I am afraid you are mistaken Stan, Torture is not trained in the military, and has not been for a very very long time Green Berets most of all are not trained in torture tactics. They do not have the people trained to do that type of work, nor the mission statment.

Originally posted by Dave
I am afraid you are mistaken Stan, Torture is not trained in the military, and has not been for a very very long time Green Berets most of all are not trained in torture tactics. They do not have the people trained to do that type of work, nor the mission statment.

I can't remember the name of the General (who happens to be a Green Beret) who published his methods of torture with respects to counter-insurgency sometime about a year ago, but I would like to point out the fact that torture by a national Army in the process of counter-insurgency has happened as of quite recently. If you ever have the time, I would suggest you read over some Battle of Algiers just for a taste of a proportionality.

Stan considering that my line of work in the military gives me knowledge on the subject.... naw pointless. You will believe what you wish.

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by Dave]

Originally posted by Dave
Stan considering that my line of work in the military give me knowledge on the subject.... naw pointless. You will believe what you wish.

Uh, so, American soldiers telling Iraqis to stand on small cardboard boxes and that they would be electrocuted if they moved off of it doesn't constitute as torture?

Those were idiot MP's who are being taken care of by the system, and oddly enough are used as specific examples on how not to treat detained people now.

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by Dave]

Originally posted by Dave
Those were idiot MP's who are being taken care of by the system.

How come the higher ranks who issued the orders to use humiliation tactics and the use of dogs haven't received any kind of military trial?

- Assuming allegations from the actual torturers are true.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave

My dad was over in Nam, and yeah he told me about a lot of stuff that went on, no baby killing im afraid.
Bullshit. Search-and-destroy missions conveniently left babies out of the equation. Nope, wrong again.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Dave
Stan considering that my line of work in the military gives me knowledge on the subject.... naw pointless. You will believe what you wish.

You're in training with no practicle experience.

Yes it's pointless because you still don't have a clue yet you expect us to buy into your "expertise" because of a uniform.

[Edaarin]

I also know nothing about what happened in Vietnam.

I mean, I don't have any family or anything over there.

My father also never spent several years in a POW camp.

I also have never heard any stories of the atrocities commited by American soldiers.

[Warriorbird]

How come we still have torture conducted in Guantanamo then, Dave?
"laws of warfare"
That we break.
With that said? I can see the purpouse of it. I also know that the our soldiers who fought in Vietnam were treated terribly, still are treated badly in many cases, by other veterans even.

It wasn't their fault, they were in a war their Commanders in Chief should not have had them in.

They also trained a bunch of people who then got slaughtered.

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by Warriorbird]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave
having looked into the lancet study a bit more the results they received ended up being between 8,000 and 194,000 deaths and by splitting the difference they came up with the number 100,000

I did some searching and couldn't find any evidence of your claim. The study was done by some rather impressive scientist who used a sampling to arrive at their figure ,much like they do for quality control or election results. Because the study was a sampling I fail to understand how it is possible they could have arrived at a number between 8000 and 194000.

For the record the authors of the Lancet study was done by Les Roberts and Gilbert M. Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah

Originally posted by xtc
I know I sound like Tsa'ah but Dave do you believe all the bullshit they spoon feed you in the army?

Sad sad attempt.

Immitated, but never duplicated.

There is no question about life under the thumb of Sadam. To me there isn't a question about the heavy loss the people of Iraq have been dealt by the Bush squad. I can only hope that when the dust settles things will indeed be better.

Trust me it wasn't intentional.

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by xtc]

If nobody has read the Al Qaeda manual expecialy how they are to react when taken captive I suggest you do.

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

It can be found there.

[xtc]

For my friend Dave regarding IBC's response to the Lancet study. I wonder if you read the release. Here are some excerpts:

“We have always been quite explicit that our own total is certain to be an underestimate of the true position, because of gaps in reporting or recording. It is no part of our practice, at least as far as our published totals are concerned, to make any prediction or projection about what the "unseen" number of deaths might have been”

"Finally, we reject any attempt, by pro-war governments and others, to minimise the seriousness of deaths so far recorded by comparing them to higher figures…..”

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Dave
having looked into the lancet study a bit more the results they received ended up being between 8,000 and 194,000 deaths and by splitting the difference they came up with the number 100,000

I did some searching and couldn't find any evidence of your claim. The study was done by some rather impressive scientist who used a sampling to arrive at their figure ,much like they do for quality control or election results. Because the study was a sampling I fail to understand how it is possible they could have arrived at a number between 8000 and 194000.

For the record the authors of the Lancet study was done by Les Roberts and Gilbert M. Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York.

it was not that hard to find

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3352814

Here is a responce from the brittish government

http://www.britainusa.com/sections/articles_show.asp?SarticleType=1&Article_ID=6016&i =121

look harder next time.

[Back]

Either way, to say “well we killed less Iraqis than Saddam did” is as bad as saying, “that guy mudered 10 people but I only murdered one.”

I'm not saying that. I am however debating the claim that we killed 100,000 people over there. One report the truth does not make.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Dave
having looked into the lancet study a bit more the results they received ended up being between 8,000 and 194,000 deaths and by splitting the difference they came up with the number 100,000

I did some searching and couldn't find any evidence of your claim. The study was done by some rather impressive scientist who used a sampling to arrive at their figure ,much like they do for quality control or election results. Because the study was a sampling I fail to understand how it is possible they could have arrived at a number between 8000 and 194000.

For the record the authors of the Lancet study was done by Les Roberts and Gilbert M. Burnham of the Center for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore; Richard Garfield of Columbia University in New York.

it was not that hard to find

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3352814

Here is a responce from the brittish government

http://www.britainusa.com/sections/articles_show.asp?SarticleType=1&Article_ID=6016&i =121

look harder next time.

Thank you Dave. BTW did you read these articles I found them quite interesting especially this part:

"It does not, however, mean, as some commentators have argued in response to this study, that figures of 8,000 or 194,000 are as likely as one of 98,000. Quite the contrary. The farther one goes from 98,000, the less likely the figure is."

Also the fact that the margin of error is in fact... 186,000 deaths.
naw its likely that it is 100% true.

i will add this though, if it was say 20,000 deaths of innocent people, and 80,000 deaths of combatives, I would not feel bad about the 80,000 in the least bit.


[Edited on 2-2-2005 by Dave]

[Back]

How many of us really understand the voting process in Iraq’s first democratic election? Here is a CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/27/q.and.a/index.html) faq on the process.

Basically they’ve set up an electoral process where the Iraqi public votes for parlimentary seats, then the parliment elects their president.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Dave
Also the fact that the margin of error is in fact... 186,000 deaths.
naw its likely that it is 100% true.

i will add this though, if it was say 20,000 deaths of innocent people, and 80,000 deaths of combatives, I would not feel bad about the 80,000 in the least bit.


[Edited on 2-2-2005 by Dave]

The margin of error is not 186 000 deaths. Here this is from The Economist article.

"So the discrepancy between the Lancet estimate and the aggregated press reports is not as large as it seems at first. The Lancet figure implies that 60,000 people have been killed by violence, including insurgents, while the aggregated press reports give a figure of 15,000, counting only civilians. Nonetheless, Dr Roberts points out that press reports are a “passive-surveillance system”. Reporters do not actively go out to many random areas and see if anyone has been killed in a violent attack, but wait for reports to come in. And, Dr Roberts says, passive-surveillance systems tend to undercount mortality. For instance, when he was head of health policy for the International Rescue Committee in the Congo, in 2001, he found that only 7% of meningitis deaths in an outbreak were recorded by the IRC's passive system"

[CrystalTears]

Holy crap who gives a shit about who caused more deaths than whom? Saddam AND the war has caused many lives and it's a tragedy on both counts. Saddam was taken out of power which was a good thing. Just hope for a nice ending to this war and leave it at that.

Waaaa we bombed cities during WWII and people died in them! They were civilians!! Waaaa they died accidentally! Waaaa!

- Arkans

PS: I'm glad there wasn't any of this crying back then.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Arkans
Waaaa we bombed cities during WWII and people died in them! They were civilians!! Waaaa they died accidentally! Waaaa!

- Arkans

PS: I'm glad there wasn't any of this crying back then.

In World War two Germany invaded other nations such Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Only after this did England and France declare war on Germany. This isn't the situation here. Iraq invaded no one and possessed no weapons of mass destruction which was the only LEGAL reason to invade Iraq. The UN chose not to invade Iraq, weapon inspectors were on the ground in Iraq doing their job. BUT the cowboy Dubbya wasn't satisfied with that and chose to go off 1/2 cocked and invade Iraq. For these reasons I find the killing of innocent civilians particularly heinous as it was unnecessary. In WW2 there was no choice.

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by xtc]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by xtc
In World War two Germany invaded other nations such Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Only after this did England and France declare war on Germany. This isn't the situation here. Iraq invaded no one and possessed no weapons of mass destruction which was the only LEGAL reason to invade Iraq. You think Poland was glad we waited for them to get slaughtered? Hell, we (America) waited for France to get slaughtered too. And that's just the European theater (or whatever the cool word is).

[xtc]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by xtc
In World War two Germany invaded other nations such Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. Only after this did England and France declare war on Germany. This isn't the situation here. Iraq invaded no one and possessed no weapons of mass destruction which was the only LEGAL reason to invade Iraq. You think Poland was glad we waited for them to get slaughtered? Hell, we (America) waited for France to get slaughtered too. And that's just the European theater (or whatever the cool word is).

America waited because of a culture of isolationism. Britain and France didn't. My point was simply that you can't compare the two.

Then let us be sure that you can not compare Vietnam to what is going on now. :)

[Keller]

Originally posted by Dave
Then let us be sure that you can not compare Vietnam to what is going on now. :)

Why, because they're both pre-emptive nation building attempts?

[Tsa`ah]

No, because Dave is the military expert (not) and doesn't like logical parallels drawn between the two because it makes it harder for him to argue his BS.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Keller

Originally posted by Dave
Then let us be sure that you can not compare Vietnam to what is going on now. :)

Why, because they're both pre-emptive nation building attempts? Not to mention the fact that apparently we haven't learned from past mistakes.

[Tsa`ah]

Didn't you know DeV, we didn't make mistakes in Nam. We didn't kill civilians in mass via bombing, straffing or burning.

None of that happened. It's just a Kerry lie.

Did bad things happen, yes. Do I think things were blown out or proportion to further an agenda you betcha.

[Back]

Originally posted by Dave
Did bad things happen, yes. Do I think things were blown out or proportion to further an agenda you betcha.

Here is that agenda.

Project for the New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html)

[Warriorbird]

Blown out've proportion?

:snickers:

That's one way to characterize it. I think I've got a few relatives who'd reply pretty violently.... and they were there.

That aside, I think the main valid parallel is between "training" the locals to protect themselves.

[Tsa`ah]

If he had the attention span I'd suggest he watch "Fog of War" and listen to what McNamara's take on things. Since he doesn't ... well everyone else watch it.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
Do I think things were blown out or proportion to further an agenda you betcha. I couldn't tell if you were referring to Iraq or Vietnam for a minute there. :rolleyes:

[xtc]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
If he had the attention span I'd suggest he watch "Fog of War" and listen to what McNamara's take on things. Since he doesn't ... well everyone else watch it.

Although I happen to be closer to Tsa'ah's opinion than Dave's on this issue, it is incredible to watch Tsa'ah's sardonic style. I bet he doesn't own a copy of Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people"

[Edited on 2-3-2005 by xtc]