Why dont they blow up...

[Eg.]

ok, so lets see, executig a teenage murder is comparable to killing a 15 for eating... yes that makes sense.

bush won for that, and kerry also couldnt keep a positsion longer than a crack whore nor would he tell people what his plans were.

or he won because more than 50% of the nation likes him. that was a close race, ad if he did have infulence it would have be 70/30.

 

[Kangy]

ok, so lets see, executig a teenage murder is comparable to killing a 15 for eating... yes that makes sense.

bush won for that, and kerry also couldnt keep a positsion longer than a crack whore nor would he tell people what his plans were.

or he won because more than 50% of the nation likes him. that was a close race, ad if he did have infulence it would have be 70/30.

By the disputed election, I meant the first.

Also, it's still killing children. What it's for was never the issue.

 

[burner69]

blew up a part of it=911

worst off nation= economy suffered

nuclear weapons=they all want nuke us or isreal(iran, nkorea)

and uneqquied? Iraq had the 4th largest army in the world, and it was equipped, and they had 3 months to get ready with the whole "plz let us go in oh mighty U.N" the iraqi army was just demoralized and poorly trained.

and y do i say 3 months? my country house is inbetween 2 army airfields, and 3 months before the war, the cargo planes started fly 3 times a day instead of 1 a week

1. A part. One day (a horrific day no doubt, evil beyond measure) tho a little further up this measure we see the months and months of bombing. Many many more people killed.

2. Economy suffered. Yes. People will die from that, you know? It's not like people dont want or need a quality of life. Sh*t, if america was suddenly forced into growing opium to survive what wud they feel? ...Actually, they'd prob just nuke some country and nick their resources.

3. Why would Iran or N.Korea want to nuke us? Explain why? If they did have some super reason, which I dont think they have, they still would not do it. We have many many more nuclear weapons than them - they know full well we'd destroy them. Yet if they have a nuke, we won't bomb them, and they know it, cuz they'd just chuck one right back.

4. I was referring to the coalition soliders going in without vital body armour and desert training.

 

[Kangy]

ok, so lets see, executig a teenage murder is comparable to killing a 15 for eating... yes that makes sense.

bush won for that, and kerry also couldnt keep a positsion longer than a crack whore nor would he tell people what his plans were.

or he won because more than 50% of the nation likes him. that was a close race, ad if he did have infulence it would have be 70/30.

By the disputed election, I meant the first.

Also, it's still killing children. What it's for was never the issue. If Bush's issues are based around religion, surely it's getting a bit close to Iran's methods?

 

[burner69]

ok, so lets see, executig a teenage murder is comparable to killing a 15 for eating... yes that makes sense..

I personally dont think people should get killed on the electric chair, or through lethal injection; no matter what they've done. I think they need help.

Now because I don't agree with the death penalty in the US, does that now give me the right to nukes every single american?

Because that seemed to be the logic earlier on.

 

[seinfeldrules]

yes I did answer it, I said something to the effect of "what else could my answer be?" ...that's an answer!

so now I'm waiting for your answer ...go ahead <stern pulls up chair and waits>

I'm talking about my answer to your question. You never responded.

PS It took you 2 days to answer that you dont support terrorism. I wonder how serious a statement that was.

 

[burner69]

I'm talking about my answer to your question. You never responded.

PS It took you 2 days to answer that you dont support terrorism. I wonder how serious a statement that was.

Stop dodging the point of this debate.
I'm sure no one on these forums condones murdering people on tv, it is an obvious question. Cpt Stern answered that question. And if he didnt answer any other equally idiotic ones there might just be a reason for that - it is not helping the debate, and the answer is self evident.

However if you wish to continue bringin up this point I'd like to know why you haven't answered my question?

 

[seinfeldrules]

However if you wish to continue bringin up this point I'd like to know why you haven't answered my question?

I havent read any question directed at me.

 

[burner69]

So far I've seen people arguing against America be routinely targetted to make them look stupid.

Seinfeld, you didn't answer our question immediately following the "is it ok to broadcast killings" question. Acoording to you, not answering such blindingly obvious questions means you condone it. So are you condoning the murder of thousands of innocent Iraq and Afghan men, women and children? You haven't answered it yet.

We're being accused of sticking up for al-quaeda. We've explained WHY it is they do murder people. Why america isn't helping. And going on to compare the number of killings (a rather unfortunate way to have to compare the atrociousness of either side) - we are simply pointing out that we believe killing tens, even hundreds of thousands of people is not good - and those of you ignoring the fact and continuing to hound us about not answering questions and being unpatriotic are not only being offensive; but suggesting that they value american lives greatly over Iraq or Afgan people.

You still haven't answered the question Seinfeld.

[/QUOTE]
Are you saying that this is justifiable?

Are you saying that it's justifiable to corner political ideas and create terrorists?[/QUOTE]

Answer me this.

Do you think its right for the states to invade a country under false pretenses, bomb civilian areas, and tell the people that Iraq is a safer and better country?

are you denying that there have not been tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan? 100,000 might be an overly liberal estimate, but it's collosally wrong either way.

Before you say: Those questions weren't directly asked of me; neither was Korebolt's directed at Cpt Stern, rather, the side debating that America's actions are not justified.

You took it upon urself to pester Cpt Stern into a pointless answer. I'm taking it upon myself to pester you for an answer to these questions, that apparently need answering.

EDIT: Infact the original question was directed to me. My question still stands though.

 

[seinfeldrules]

So are you condoning the murder of thousands of innocent Iraq and Afghan men, women and children?

It is not murder. I feel the war is justified and they are casualties that are unavoidable. There will be no wars with a 0 casualty count, the only condolence I can find is that there will one day be a day when innocent Iraqis will no longer be put in this situation. It is better than a life eternally under the watch of Saddam with no hope of change. You also dont bring up the terrorists who purposely target civilians in Iraq, nor the majority of the US Armed Forces who go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties, at great risk to themselves. Compare this to the terrorist forces in Iraq hiding out in Mosques, hospitals, and homes.

I bolded the main point of my response, and the word majority to signify that it is not a blanketed statement.

Do you think its right for the states to invade a country under false pretenses, bomb civilian areas, and tell the people that Iraq is a safer and better country?

This should have really been three questions, as they dont relate at all.

"Do you think its right for the states to invade a country under false pretenses"- No.

That is just the basic response. If asked if I felt Bush was at fault I would respond 'no'. The intelligence given to him pointed to Iraq being a threat to the US and the world as a whole. Furthermore, he could have easily used genocide as a reason to go in and stop Saddam and the world should have backed him on that.

"bomb civilian areas"- Well we have invested billions into smart bombs to reduce the innocent casualty rate as much as possible. Instead of taking out an entire city block to attain our goal, we now can take out the specific house needed. Again, I dont see why you are not questioning the terrorists for hiding in hospitals, mosques, and highly populated areas to begin with. There is a point where we need to kill the enemy, and if they are hiding in these areas, there is really nothing that can be done.

tell the people that Iraq is a safer and better country?[/

1. Without Saddam, Iraq is inherently safer. I can see no argument to the contrary. I dont even think Michael Moore would suggest that removing Saddam made Iraq a less safe nation.
2. It will grow better over time. They now have the ability to trade with the free world and create opportunities of their own. Something that was not possible before.

are you denying that there have not been tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan? 100,000 might be an overly liberal estimate,

No, I am not denying it. This is basically the same question asked earlier, so I'm not going to respond to it again.

PS I did find it funny you used the term 'liberal' estimate. And it might be an liberal estimate? Come on now, it is. The own webpage pretty much says that. That figure was about 80,000 higher than anyother if I remember right.

 

[Bait]

I bolded the main point of my response, and the word majority to signify that it is not a blanketed statement.


This should have really been three questions, as they dont relate at all.

"Do you think its right for the states to invade a country under false pretenses"- No.

That is just the basic response. If asked if I felt Bush was at fault I would respond 'no'. The intelligence given to him pointed to Iraq being a threat to the US and the world as a whole. Furthermore, he could have easily used genocide as a reason to go in and stop Saddam and the world should have backed him on that.

"bomb civilian areas"- Well we have invested billions into smart bombs to reduce the innocent casualty rate as much as possible. Instead of taking out an entire city block to attain our goal, we now can take out the specific house needed. Again, I dont see why you are not questioning the terrorists for hiding in hospitals, mosques, and highly populated areas to begin with. There is a point where we need to kill the enemy, and if they are hiding in these areas, there is really nothing that can be done.

So.....terrible intelligence makes the fact this lie of a war justifiable? Hmm...maybe that little international community was onto something when they opposed the war in Iraq? You know, about the whole "It not being a real threat" thing. It's a shame thousands of innocents had to die before people realized what Bush was shovelling down their throats.

As for bombing civilian areas....Smart bombs eh? Those bombs can only be as smart as the man who made and operates it. When a bomb is launched at an Iraqi newstation in the middle of a civilian area, that must be the best technology the good ol' US of A has to offer. Or....maybe it wasn't the bomb at all? Humm...

 

[burner69]

1. It is not murder. I feel the war is justified and they are casualties that are unavoidable. There will be no wars with a 0 casualty count, the only condolence I can find is that there will one day be a day when innocent Iraqis will no longer be put in this situation. It is better than a life eternally under the watch of Saddam with no hope of change. You also dont bring up the terrorists who purposely target civilians in Iraq, nor the majority of the US Armed Forces who go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties, at great risk to themselves. Compare this to the terrorist forces in Iraq hiding out in Mosques, hospitals, and homes.

I bolded the main point of my response, and the word majority to signify that it is not a blanketed statement.


2. This should have really been three questions, as they dont relate at all.

3. "Do you think its right for the states to invade a country under false pretenses"- No.

That is just the basic response. If asked if I felt Bush was at fault I would respond 'no'. The intelligence given to him pointed to Iraq being a threat to the US and the world as a whole. Furthermore, he could have easily used genocide as a reason to go in and stop Saddam and the world should have backed him on that.

4. "bomb civilian areas"- Well we have invested billions into smart bombs to reduce the innocent casualty rate as much as possible. Instead of taking out an entire city block to attain our goal, we now can take out the specific house needed. Again, I dont see why you are not questioning the terrorists for hiding in hospitals, mosques, and highly populated areas to begin with. There is a point where we need to kill the enemy, and if they are hiding in these areas, there is really nothing that can be done.


5.
1. Without Saddam, Iraq is inherently safer. I can see no argument to the contrary. I dont even think Michael Moore would suggest that removing Saddam made Iraq a less safe nation.
2. It will grow better over time. They now have the ability to trade with the free world and create opportunities of their own. Something that was not possible before.


6. No, I am not denying it. This is basically the same question asked earlier, so I'm not going to respond to it again.

7. PS I did find it funny you used the term 'liberal' estimate. And it might be an liberal estimate? Come on now, it is. The own webpage pretty much says that. That figure was about 80,000 higher than anyother if I remember right.

1. Buildings were shelled constantly, we all saw the news, and I have a friend out there now who is doing some of that shelling. Civilian buildings, with civilian's in it, were being destroyed. Also many of the people shot by our forces are simply people who do not like other countries invading their country, they wanted to protect their country and were killed.
Casualties may happen in war, it dosen't make it ok. Especially when the war is based on 'facts' that would never stand up in a court, especially when saddam had no motive to use them against us.

2. Syntax seems irrelevent here. He had a point. Civilian areas were bombed, people died. Is that ok? Of course not. (There I answered 4 u)

3. The 'evidence' was poor to say the least, and began life, I believe, in a claim made by somebody who wanted to see Saddams regime overthrown, so his could hustle in... the same guy who's tipped for Iraq presidency in a few weeks.
If America wanted to overthrow Saddam why not do it earlier? Surely not doing it directly after another war would make it easier. Why suddenly charge in with the flag of righteousness? With this in mind I believe there is far more to this than simply bringing Saddam to justice. Like, for example, keeping the American people happy by capturing someone so they have something to show for their war on terror (remember the poll that showed how many Americans thought Saddam was directly linked to 9/11)

4. Terrorists/ Iraqi Soliders hiding in hospitals and schools is very bad, believe me I know, I have two things called common sense and compassion: If they hide in there they endanger the civilians within, and that is upsetting.
Yet it does not wipe the hands of the Coalition who shell such buildings, shell other areas 'suspected' (remember the aspirin factory they thought was making chemical weapons, bak in the 90's), it does not make it ok that the Coalition have killed many thousands of innocents, based around a flimsy concept: Saddam has many WMDs... we cudnt find them but he was a bad guy so it's good he's gone. Freedom for Iraqis! as we put another idiot in power.

5. Your chance of death in Iraq at the moments is now apparently many times greater. There's a link earlier on in this thread I believe.
It is also said by many people the war shows no sign of stopping.
"It will grow better over time" HA! Look at Afghanistan, while we stormed through there, killing tens of thousands of innocents to get to Osama for killing many thousands of our people, we arsed up that country. I heard a lot about 'freeing' Afghan at the time. Now it is in ruins. Look at history and learn lessons. Something we don't seem to be doing here.

6. Fair play.

7. That means you believe at least 20'000 innocent people have been killed? He admitted it was not accurate, but shows two sides of the coin at least. And as he said as well... either way it's very wrong.

 

[burner69]

My point to this particular bit, by the way. Is that it was pointless, offensive, and childish to pester Stern for an answer.

Let's debate issues, not bully.

 

[seinfeldrules]

My point to this particular bit, by the way. Is that it was pointless, offensive, and childish to pester Stern for an answer.

Let's debate issues, not bully.

Well, you did it to the wrong man. I'm sure you can look back over posts and see his accusations of me avoiding questions, not answering immediately etc. I assure you it has happened and it is quite annoying. Often times I will play CSS or go to bed only to come back and find stern gloating over his apparent victory because I didnt respond. Take tonight for example, I wont be able to respond much if any because I have a movie and a nice homeade pizza sitting in front of me waiting to be consumed. It seems we made a little circle here. Stern was after me, I was after him, you were after me. :rolling:

 

[burner69]

Lol, fair enough. Don't like it when people call victories over absence, not a good call.

Though in fairness he didn't badger you in this debate; and I recall I once saw him do it to somebody during a cannabis debate (when they persistantly avoided giving any evidence for their claims) which I thought was a fair enuff point to badger on.

A: Drugs are bad
B: Why?
A: They are bad.
B: Give examples.
A: Bad, they are.
B: Please answer the question.
A: God, they're just bad don't you know? etc etc

 

[hasan]

Safer?!!! dude, go to iraq for two days and you wil be happy you got out alive ..

Safety in iraq has become part of the past .. a dream! since the very first day .. all the criminals went out and literally looted everything! that's just the first day!

Iraq is full of mafias and drug dealers and gangs .. and the americans aren't doing anything about them, they only go after the resistance.

Without Saddam, Iraq is inherently safer. I can see no argument to the contrary. I dont even think Michael Moore would suggest that removing Saddam made Iraq a less safe nation

you don't have a clue, do you?

oh, and there are a couple of lies you are repeating in your post, the most significant one is that the resistance hides in houses and hospitals .. that's a lie produced by the american military, it's a propaganda to justify targetting these places.


and to the other guy: Islam is not just a claim, look: if Saddam said "We are a democratic gov't!" does that make his gov't a democratic gov't?!!! 'course not.
Iran is just a tyrant(sp?) gov't claiming to be Islamic.

 

[Eg.]

where where oh where did you find out that it is just propoganda?

 

[seinfeldrules]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49571-2004Nov14.html

oh, and there are a couple of lies you are repeating in your post, the most significant one is that the resistance hides in houses and hospitals .. that's a lie produced by the american military, it's a propaganda to justify targetting these places.

Quoted from an Iraqi soldier. -

"We found a huge amount of weapons," Mustafa said, including rocket-propelled grenades, surface-to-air missiles, AK-47s and hand grenades.

When the Iraqi soldiers entered the city, they found the fighters hiding in houses and other buildings, even in mosques. Like their American counterparts, the soldiers discovered that the insurgents had laid traps for them. "This was new to us," Mustafa said. "Afterwards, we discovered this trick" and started to bomb the houses where the insurgents were found

You seem to want Saddam back in power for some reason, yet you claim to be Iraqi. It seems to be an odd contradiction.


More from the article.-

He said he would never think about giving up now, not when his country needed him. "If I don't try and others don't, those rats will spread with their diseases," he said. "We have been silent enough."

"Don't look to the destruction," a soldier standing next to Mustafa said. "Look at the future of the city without terrorists."

PS Safety sure did go out when we took control. I mean its not like Saddam didnt kill 400,000+ innocent people. But since you didnt know any of those people, it must be ok. I really cant believe you are Iraqi anymore.

 

[burner69]

Saddam was an evil b*stard, no doubt. Everyone, I think, believes his removal from power is a good thing.

I personally do NOT like the way it is being done for a number of reasons, which will just send us round and round in a loop, f*cking over innocent, poorer country's citizens.

* Saddam has always been known to be a threat. Nothing was done. Almost immediatley after reports came out that Osama was not likely to be caught, we were told Saddam had links to terrorists. Then we invade Iraq; which has WMD, which can and will be used in 45mins by this evil terrorist dictator. All of that is a lie, or a presumption made on false intelligence. No two ways about it. Just use your head, why would Saddam want to use his WMD if he had them?

* In going after Saddam just after the Afghan war we were not prepared. Safety is compromised when you skip happily from one war to another - rushing, almost, to get a head on a stick for 9/11 and the war on terrorism.

* Now, after overthrowing an evil dictator (who it is believed by many that the CIA had at least some part in putting in power), the Americans are putting another, apparently evil, man in power, whom many Iraqis do not like or trust. Get ready to watch history repeat itself and us feel very stupid and sad about it all. Also, get ready to see Allowai (sp?) filling his side of the deal and helping the US out with resources from Iraq that America greatly needs for its declining economy.

Fighting wars through poorer countries who happen to have a few terrorists in, or something else (perhaps a str8 lie, like 45min WMD) leaving them to rot (like Afghanistan) then moving on to please its people by parading nasty ba*tards heads on sticks, and claiming to be spreading democracy (something that perhaps some countries do not want, or are not ready for).

It bothers me, especially when I think how many much better ways things could be run.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Saddam was an evil b*stard, no doubt. Everyone, I think, believes his removal from power is a good thing.

I was referring to Hasan who sounds more and more like it is what he does believe.

 

[Tim F]

In terms of innocent people rounded up, killed, tortured, raped etc., on a monthly basis, we're way ahead of Saddam. Violent crime is way, way up. Ditto for preventable deaths from malnutrition and disease. Maybe some day the country will settle down to the point where Iraqis feel safer, but at the moment people who claim that Iraqis are better off based on those numbers alone have not a leg to stand on.

 

[seinfeldrules]

In terms of innocent people rounded up, killed, tortured, raped etc., on a monthly basis, we're way ahead of Saddam. Violent crime is way, way up. Ditto for preventable deaths from malnutrition and disease. Maybe some day the country will settle down to the point where Iraqis feel safer, but at the moment people who claim that Iraqis are better off based on those numbers alone have not a leg to stand on.

I'd like to say any evidence of us being ahead on those things. You mention rape and torture. I also dont see you faulting the Iraqi terrorists for purposely targeting civilians in Iraq. These are people who go out everyday and kill as many as they can using car bombs and ambushes.

 

[Tim F]

The Iraqi resistance did not exist before we invaded. Their death toll goes on our tab as well.

Ask the general question, do Iraqis feel safer since we invaded? Well, you could measure that by how likely they are to be arrested, tortured and raped. Before we invaded the single danger came from the state. Now the danger comes from us. It comes from uncontrolled thugs in the resistance. It comes from mercenary kidnap gangs, carjackers and random snipers. It comes from 500-lb bombs dropped in residential neighborhoods.

In a Lancet-published study, which is about as rigorous as epidemiology reporting gets, 100,000 Iraqis are estimated to have died. Other experts call that a conservative number. If remotely true then we have far, far exceeded the monthly average under Saddam (about 1,400 if 400,000 dead over a 30-year career is accurate).

Random detentions is a no-brainer. Saddam had prisons with vast numbers of innocent people, we have prisons with vast numbers of innocent people. You can google photos of prisoners being attacked with numuzzled dogs, beaten to death and forced to do things that, to an Iraqi, would leave no option but suicide. Did Saddam torture more? I'm not sure that's an argument you really want to have. I recall conservatives lamenting loudly about how "one rape room is too many!" Well, yes.

Seymour Hersch, who broke most of this information, claims to have seen photos and videos of children and women raped. We already know that women and children are frequently detained in order to pressure the father to talk. Given the general lawlessness at abu Ghraib there is every reason to think that Hersch is, again, right.

Preventable disease? Iraq has few to no functioning water treatment plants. When that happens people get sick. Medact, a UK group with hands-on experience in Iraq, has the scoop.

In a nutshell, Iraqis have little reason ATM to thank Uncle Sam. Maybe some day but today, no.

 

[Bait]

I'd like to say any evidence of us being ahead on those things. You mention rape and torture. I also dont see you faulting the Iraqi terrorists for purposely targeting civilians in Iraq. These are people who go out everyday and kill as many as they can using car bombs and ambushes.

And the Americans are the ones who invaded under a banner of lies of half truths, resulting in more civilians being killed. I don't see you faulting that.

 

[hasan]

seinfeldrules, I think you are getting desparate, that's why you are accusing me of supporting saddam, which I never said nor implied nor anything related ..

also, your quote has absolutly no value, this soldier (traitor, I should say) is just another person who agrees with you, why are you bringing his words as an argument?
He is in the military with the Americans, he's more likely to spew lies than tell the truth.
The fact that he is Iraqi makes it more likely, becuase you know, if he betrays his country, lying is not something he's gonna hesitate doing.

You should really hear the testimonies of the people's whose homes are being bombed, not the ones bombing them ..

EDIT:
also, you're not in a position to accuse me of supporting Saddam, because you support Bush. even if for the arguemnt's sake I support saddam, what can you say against me that you are innocent of? killing innocent people? or bombing civillian houses? or opression? or mass arrests? or turtoring prisonors? or holding detainess without trial?

You already support all that, I don't.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The fact that he is Iraqi makes it more likely, becuase you know, if he betrays his country, lying is not something he's gonna hesitate doing.

But the civilan in Fallujah wasnt lying, correct? You're grasping at straws. "He disagrees with me, LIAR, TRAITOR"

also, your quote has absolutly no value, this soldier (traitor, I should say) is just another person who agrees with you, why are you bringing his words as an argument?

This is why I am suggesting it. You are calling soldiers fighting to free Iraq traitors. Who is he a traitor against? You're man Saddam?

He is in the military with the Americans, he's more likely to spew lies than tell the truth.

He is in the Iraqi military with other Iraqis. Read the article.

even if for the arguemnt's sake I support saddam, what can you say against me that you are innocent of? killing innocent people? or bombing civillian houses? or opression? or mass arrests? or turtoring prisonors? or holding detainess without trial?

Genocide, the arrest of anyone disagreeing with him, execution style killings of hundreds of political dissenters, running a regime parralell to that of Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin.

 

[seinfeldrules]

In a Lancet-published study, which is about as rigorous as epidemiology reporting gets, 100,000 Iraqis are estimated to have died. Other experts call that a conservative number. If remotely true then we have far, far exceeded the monthly average under Saddam (about 1,400 if 400,000 dead over a 30-year career is accurate).

That is a highly liberal number. It is 80,000 above the other suggested numbers given in the article. I'm sorry if you buy into the most extreme numbers given to justify your cause.

And the Americans are the ones who invaded under a banner of lies of half truths, resulting in more civilians being killed. I don't see you faulting that.

More? There were 400,000+ already killed.

 

[hasan]

But the civilan in Fallujah wasnt lying, correct? You're grasping at straws. "He disagrees with me, LIAR, TRAITOR"

youa re the one using this "he disagrees with me" logic.
This is what I said:
"You should really hear the testimonies of the people's whose homes are being bombed, not the ones bombing them .."

where as you dismiss the testimony of the victim .. for no valid reason, just because it contradicts your military's propaganda, and accept the testimony of the attacker, because he's on your side.

 

[seinfeldrules]

where as you dismiss the testimony of the victim .. for no valid reason other than it contradicts your military's propaganda, and you accept the testimony of the soldier .. because he's on your side.

I disputed it because it wasnt being widely covered by the press.

Again, your stances seem to be favoring Saddam more and more. I am shocked you actually called that soldier a traitor.

 

[hasan]

I disputed it because it wasnt being widely covered by the press.

If I were you I would dispute the press for not coveting it widely enough so that people like you are forced to hear about it even if they watch only Fox 24/7

Again, your stances seem to be favoring Saddam

Man you really are desparate ..
hmm .. yes! I hate America! omg I must be evil saddamist nazi terorrist and all the bad things in teh world!

Do you have any other reason to belive that I support saddam? when did I even say or imply that?

heh .. I know what you're gonna quote .. you're gonna quote me supporting the resistance and conclude that I support saddam.

 

[Tim F]

Nobody knows what they are talking about WRT the 100,000 number. All other estimates come from published deaths reported in western sources. The Lancet estimate represents the first attempt to rigorously answer the question of how many Iraqis actually died, rather than the number reported in the papers.

For the second time, and forgive me if I missed the answer the first time, does anybody seriously believe that every Iraqi death makes it into the western press? Even a majority? Thanks in advance.

FYI, this'll be my last post for awhile. Priorities.

 

[Bait]

More? There were 400,000+ already killed.

Ok, Saddam was a mass murderer who was helped by the States. Hell, the States even turned a blind eye against him when he gased the Kurds. I'm not defending Saddam, he was a bastard, but the Bush administration is ranked lower in my books because they put all these killings behind a mask of "Do goods" and "Rightousness."

These deaths were caused by a compeltely avoidable and pointless war that will cause more grief than good in the long run, I believe.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Nobody knows what they are talking about WRT the 100,000 number. All other estimates come from published deaths reported in western sources. The Lancet estimate represents the first attempt to rigorously answer the question of how many Iraqis actually died, rather than the number reported in the papers.

Again, you didnt read into the reasoning behind the 'survey' by the Lanclet organization. It was quite small and questionable. There is a Washington Post article which points this out.

 

[burner69]

Saddam, is an evil man, do not get me wrong; he's f*cked and deserves to sit in a cell for as long as he lives (hopefully very long, to make it worse for him).

Yet Bush and Blair started a war on false premises; through either lies or misinformation a good many people have died in a short space of time - as was pointed out before far more daily than Saddam (although admittedly in time that should hopefully dip). Fair enough we're at war, but Saddam went out of his way to kill these people, we're trying to free them, and we're blowing them up! Killing them.

The Lancet report has much credibility that others don't have. It's not perfect, but shows when western interests aren't involved that figure can easily soar. I personally think the number to be far less than 100'000, but more than the 20'000 you see. (The AS90, the self propelled cannon used by the British royal artillery was bombing towns in Iraq all through the war. When that shell explodes everyone exposed within 100metres will find their heads literally exploding under the intense change of pressure (this info is from an artillery corporal) - my friend said he fired at least 50 of those shells a day for the forst fortnight of the war - think how many just his vehicle could have killed). Then add the rest of the artillery. Then the aerial bombing. Then the shoot outs. Then the prisoners being tortured. Easy to see how large numbers of civilians can be killed.

 

[burner69]

Again, you didnt read into the reasoning behind the 'survey' by the Lanclet organization. It was quite small and questionable. There is a Washington Post article which points this out.

Comparing a reasonably unbias survey with the washington post -which has a keen western interest, is not exactly fair.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Comparing a reasonably unbias survey with the washington post -which has a keen western interest, is not exactly fair.

The Washington Post itself wasnt the one critiquing the survey. They were quoting some guy that was the head of some major humanitarian council. Ill dig it up later.

 

[burner69]

The Washington Post itself wasnt the one critiquing the survey. They were quoting some guy that was the head of some major humanitarian council. Ill dig it up later.

Fair play, yeah, if you could get that I'd be interested, cheers

 

[Tim F]

It remains that people do not understand the different casualty numbers. 'Lancet' (not 'Lancelet') did not perform the study. The Lancet is the most prestigious medical journal in the world. Independent investigators perform research and, if they have the werewithal to pass the most rigorous peer-review process in the world, Lancet publishes their work.

Again, for the record: other estimates, which range from twenty to thirty thousand dead, come from published death reports in western media. That is a problem because nobody believes that every violent civilian death makes it into the western media. The Lancet authors (not The Lancet) used well-established survey-based epidemiology to estimate the actual number of dead. The Lancet reviews hundreds of epidemiology-based submissions a month, so you can be sure that if the authors' approach didn't pass muster then Lancet would have found a more worthy study to publish. Their reputation counts for a lot more than the shock value of a particular scoop.

So, for the third time. Anybdoy who stands behind the twenty-to-thirty-thousand estimates feel free to answer: do you honestly believe that every Iraqi civilian death, or even a majority, gets reported in the western press?

 

[burner69]

I love the long silence... well I don't really love it, its a bit morbid, but its speaking a thousand words right now.

 

[seinfeldrules]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7967-2004Oct28.html

Previous independent estimates of civilian deaths in Iraq were far lower, never exceeding 16,000. Other experts immediately challenged the new estimate, saying the small number of documented deaths upon which it was based make the conclusions suspect.

"The methods that they used are certainly prone to inflation due to overcounting," said Marc E. Garlasco, senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch, which investigated the number of civilian deaths that occurred during the invasion. "These numbers seem to be inflated."

The researchers and the Lancet editors acknowledged that the study has clear limitations, including a relatively small sample of violent deaths that were examined directly and the researchers' reliance on individual memories for some information. But the researchers said the findings represent the most reliable estimate to date.

But Garlasco of Human Rights Watch said it is extremely difficult to estimate civilian casualties, especially based on relatively small numbers. "I certainly think that 100,000 is a reach," Garlasco said.

In addition, his group's investigation indicated that the ground war, not the air war, caused more of the deaths that have occurred.

I love the long silence... well I don't really love it, its a bit morbid, but its speaking a thousand words right now.

Come on, you're playing this game now too. Not everybody spends their whole life online waiting for responses. If you do, then you should examine your own social life.