[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
Did you ever explain why you went back on your statement that you would support the impeachment of Bush if WMD weren't found within 6 months of invading Iraq?

Yes, I did explain it, over and over again -- and yet you keep raising it like a red herring. I'll be quick and concise.

I believe the situation is analogous to CBS's Dan Rather airing the report of the now-discredited documents of Bush's national guard service. I don't believe CBS or Dan Rather intentionally lied, just as I do not believe that Bush or the Bush administration intentionally lied. This view was bourn out by the 9/11 inquiries that found no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that Bush lied about any of this. Thus there are no grounds for impeachment.

Really, having this debate all over again is silly, and short of answering it here this one last time, I'm not going to bother responding to... well, trolls. It's been widely shown that the policy of regime change was put into effect by Clinton in 1997. In Clinton's speech in 1998, he stated:

" And they will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen.

There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us."

In Hans Blix's statement to the UN, he proclaimed there was a "strong presumption" that Iraq retained WMD and WMD facilities. The CIA, British intel, French intel, Russian intel, and intelligence agencies the world over believed the man had these WMD and WMD capabilities. Chirac never disputed this, he and others simply disputed what to do about it.

Similarly, Democratic leaders here are on the record as having stated similar things:

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

Now if you say to me that Bush was irresponsible in pushing the issue, then at least we'd be talking about reasonable things. I might be inclined to agree; but really, you can let this issue go now. My basis for the impeachment statement was somewhat grandstanding, but also demonstrated my firm belief in our intelligence agencies, Saddam's deceptive history with UNSCOM inspectors, and the intelligence agencies the world over. It was a very considered decision; I believed there was simple no way all of these people could possibly be wrong. Yet they all were.

We done here?

On a final note, I don't know how well this is covered in Europe, because I've encountered many people from Europe and elsewhere who are blissfully unaware of it, and believe in strange conspiracy theories about Cheney benefitting from the war in Iraq financially because of Halliburton, so let's clear there air here:

http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

And now we bring you back to your regularly scheduled America-bashing.

[moki]

Originally posted by y0y0:
I know you have a badly hidden dislike of Europe (and please, spare me the denials, it's pretty obvious), as much as Logic has an irrational obsession with the US (and Logic, same to you, please spare me the denials, ok?), and in your relative hatreds, you both end up pissing on one another's feet and not actually saying anything constructive.

I really don't have a dislike of Europe at all; I have a dislike of all of the constant barrage of America-bashing, and I do occasionally respond in kind, you're right. I should not let my anger at these bashing and baiting sessions draw me in, and drag me down to the same level.

My brother lived in Europe for 8 years; I've spent quite a bit of time there, and I've found the people there to be quite pleasant for the most part. I apologize if I've offended anyone, but this constant barrage of America bashing really gets to me; especially the disingenuousness and hypocrisy of it all.

Originally posted by y0y0:
The US is a very inventive country, and it certainly had a big advantage on Europe after WWII, but it really isn't the only place on earth where innovation happens.

I agree it is not the only place it is happening; but it's relatively undeniable that we've been leading the world in most areas for quite some time.

[moki]

Originally posted by Logic:
I would have no problem with people voting for any other Republican. Even if I disagree with their POV at least some of them are intelligent, somewhat honest and several other attributes all of which Bush lacks. Voting for an unintelligent, alcoholic with a criminal record is stupid. No intelligent person would want someone like that in charge of a country and a military.

We had a choice between Kerry and Bush; not everyone is exactly sanguine about these two choices. I certainly wasn't -- but your insinuation still remains "anyone who disagrees with me on this is an idiot", which really is quite a statement, is it not?

Most of the time that is exactly the case. Afghanistan/Taliban/Al Qaida deserved to be attack. I've never complained about that war. I've complained about how it's been handled and how the post war scenario played out but not the war. Iraq did not deserve it because they were under control, SH was a "nice" as he ever been, and the monitors were in place and about to verify his claim that they had no WMD's. Still the US thought it would be a good idea to kill 100k innocent Iraqis. A number SH could only dream of reaching the last few years.

You've complained about anything and everything America has done, and have done your utmost to paint absolutely everything in the worst possible light, the most viciously withering attacks. You ignore facts in order to state cute talking points, as the above quote demonstrates.

You bash America time and time again for things that you give other countries/groups a free pass for. You are, in short, disingenuous in your application of criticism, judgment, and condemnation. As has been stated here, it's an extremely obvious bias, I don't know why you even bother denying it.

Yeah, because Chile felt so good under Pinochet, Cubans felt so free and happy under Batista, Iranians felt so free and democratic under the Shah and the list goes on. The US being the Beacon Of The Freedom Of The World� is just a myth.

Tell that to much of Europe, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and any number of other countries. Certainly the USA is not perfect, but we are far, far better than your selective record attempts to demonstrate.

A question, then: if not the USA, then whom? Who has been the beacon of freedom for the world over the past several hundred years?

The truth is that the US and Al Qaida deserve each other. Two different sides of the same coin.

It is not "the truth" that the US and al qeada are two sides of the same coin. You once again confuse your misguided, bent, craven opinion for "the truth". I feel sad for you that you cannot see the difference, I really do.

[mikellanes]

Originally posted by moki:
This view was bourn out by the 9/11 inquiries that found no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that Bush lied about any of this. Thus there are no grounds for impeachment.

I'll have to a agree with this, even being the dirty liberal that I am, but we shouldn't be there in the first place when there was unfinished business.

[Cody Dawg]

Logic said
"Iraq did not deserve it because they were under control, SH was a "nice" as he ever been"

Saddam Hussein was as nice as he's ever been?



Are you part of Al Quaeda or something? Is your name REALLY Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Are you part of Al Quaeda or something? Is your name REALLY Abu Musab al-Zarqawi?

That was completely uncalled for!

[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
That was completely uncalled for!

I'm quite sure he was being sarcastic

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
I'm quite sure he was being sarcastic

She.

[Randman]

Al-Zarqawi would be ashamed to be be compared to troll.

[Cody Dawg]

Yes, Troll, Moki was correct: I was being facetious.

All else aside, you just said that Saddam Hussein was "nice." This is the same man who gassed and tortured and killed thousands of people because of their nationality, or culture, or eating habits.

He killed babies and rolled them into mass graves, as seen in the picture below.

Read the article here.

Don't begin to legitimize what Saddam Hussein did because your mindset is curiously similar to the way that the terrorists think: Saddam Hussein was not that bad.

[Busemann]

Originally posted by moki:

I believe the situation is analogous to CBS's Dan Rather airing the report of the now-discredited documents of Bush's national guard service. I don't believe CBS or Dan Rather intentionally lied, just as I do not believe that Bush or the Bush administration intentionally lied.

The burden of proof is more important before invading a country than posting some documents on 60 Minutes, though. Bush rushed to war and knew the risks of doing so - If he had waited for verification, this could all have been avoided.

I'm confident the war on Iraq was planned well before 9/11. He unashamedly used the international sympathy the US got after 9/11 in order to achieve his goals, which is the root of much of the tension between EU & US today. Let's just hope foreign policy is something that will be changed for the better in the next term..

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
Yes, I did explain it, over and over again -- and yet you keep raising it like a red herring. I'll be quick and concise.

I believe the situation is analogous to CBS's Dan Rather airing the report of the now-discredited documents of Bush's national guard service. I don't believe CBS or Dan Rather intentionally lied, just as I do not believe that Bush or the Bush administration intentionally lied. This view was bourn out by the 9/11 inquiries that found no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that Bush lied about any of this. Thus there are no grounds for impeachment.

....

And you accuse Logic of pedantic argumentation!!!

Moki a year ago - "If there are no WMD in 6 months time, I will support impeachment."

Moki today - "There aren't any WMD, but he negligently lied rather than intentionally lied so I don't support impeachment because there aren't grounds to impeach."

But your Dan Rather comparison showed how completely screwed up your moral compass is! To even suggest that there is any kind of equivalence between getting a ground for war wrong and misreporting a story! Rather didn't lie. Anyone with half a brain knows that journalists don't speak the gospel; they merely put forward one version of events. Presidents are obliged and expected to tell the whole truth - which is why it is a crime for the President to lie and it's not a crime for a journalist to lie!

Rather is a journalist; it's his job to report stories. Bush is the President! When Rather gets it wrong, he looks bad. When Bush gets it wrong hundreds of thousands of people die!

Besides, wtf is "negligent" lying anyway! Ironically, this concept of a half lie has been invented by the Bushies; those religious zealots who normally see everything as black or white. In English there is no such thing as a half liar or a negligent liar. If you repeat something that is untrue you are a liar irrespective of whether you acted bona fides or not. If you want to avoid being a liar, then you need to qualify your statement by saying, "X told me that ..." That little phrase implying reported speech is implicit in everything a reporter (clever word that) says. When Bush and his neocon buddies say, "Saddam has WMD under palm trees in Western Iraq," when they say, "We know he has nuclear weapons," they are liars irrespective of whether they were relying on information supplied to them by someone else. If you repeat something that is untrue without qualification, then you're a liar. And if you're the President and you're a liar, then you're guilty of a criminal offence.

I suppose all of this is old hat for George Bush though, he being a convicted criminal already.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Yes, Troll, Moki was correct: I was being facetious.

All else aside, you just said that Saddam Hussein was "nice."

No I didn't. And you are misquoting Logic. Probably on purpose because his point is not difficult to understand. He never said Saddam was nice. He used the comparative - as in worst, worse, bad, nice, nicer, nicest. Let's try to simplify for you:

Go and grab a calendar. Now highlight each of the years on the calendar where Saddam was committing genocide. Some years Saddam might be described as nicer than others, some years worse than others. Now, grab a different colour and fill in the years where the US supported Iraq. Notice a pattern? When Saddam was truly evil, the US was in bed with him. Just before invasion, Saddam was at his nicest. Obviously Saddam's nicest doesn't compare to most people's worst but in comparison to his OWN behaviour, Saddam was nicer in 2003 than he had ever been.

Besides, even if Logic were a Saddam sympathiser, why did you ask if he was a member of Al Qaeda. Saddam and Al Qaeda are not linked.

[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
And you accuse Logic of pedantic argumentation!!! If you repeat something that is untrue you are a liar irrespective of whether you acted bona fides or not. If you want to avoid being a liar, then you need to qualify your statement by saying, "X told me that ..." That little phrase implying reported speech is implicit in everything a reporter (clever word that) says. When Bush and his neocon buddies say, "Saddam has WMD under palm trees in Western Iraq," when they say, "We know he has nuclear weapons," they are liars irrespective of whether they were relying on information supplied to them by someone else. If you repeat something that is untrue without qualification, then you're a liar. And if you're the President and you're a liar, then you're guilty of a criminal offence.

Being wrong, especially when that opinion is based on intelligence reports provided to you, is not lying. We have all been wrong; I've seen you be utterly factually wrong with many things you've said here. Does this mean you lied? I think not.

Again, please review the number of intelligence agencies around the world that believed what Bush stated was true (indeed, his statements were based on their reports). Review the statements from other politicians in the USA, such as Clinton, who set the policy of regime change in Iraq. You cannot simply say "Bush lied" -- you'd be implicating literally thousands of people from countries all over the world. I'm sorry you can't accept that this makes no sense whatever.

Again, the 9/11 inquiries did not find any fault with Bush; they concluded he did not lie. It was a bipartisan commission. And if you think the Democrats would not have seized on this and impeached the man if there was anything whatever to your claims, you don't know the political situation here.

The Lord Hutton inquiries similarly found that Blair did not lie either. You're welcome to disagree with both, but you're basing it on a predisposition to not trust either man. I'm done arguing this with you; you're welcome to your opinion.

[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
Obviously Saddam's nicest doesn't compare to most people's worst but in comparison to his OWN behaviour, Saddam was nicer in 2003 than he had ever been.

Yes, that was the pattern with Saddam as evidenced by the UNSCOM reports. Stall and deceive until the last minute, then feign openness, then go back to your old ways. Lather, rinse, repeat, do it over and over again for 12 years. The first gulf war never ended; a cease fire agreement was signed, one which put the onus on Saddam to prove these things, not for the inspectors to "catch" him. He violated it over and over again, and played the UN for fools.

Meanwhile, he managed to line his pockets with billions of dollars by corrupting the UN oil for food program, and dealing with extremely high level, prominent people in countries in Europe. I'm amazed that this scandal is being swept under the carpet, really. Where's the outrage?

[Cody Dawg]

Sorry, Troll, I meant Logic. I think the original post is deleted anyway.

I'm sorry, but the American public at large does not really care what the reason for getting SH out is. He was a genocidal terrorist at large. He had his chance to retire gracefully, even to another country (France invited him, remember) and he did not. Now he will rot his life away in a prison.

Now, as I have said before, I think that Iraq is a stepping stone to spying on Iran. Iran is a much bigger problem because they are progressing with their nuclear programs.

The United States and Israel and Great Britain will put a stop to that too.

[Cody Dawg]

Yes, that was the pattern with Saddam as evidenced by the UNSCOM reports. Stall and deceive until the last minute, then feign openness, then go back to your old ways. Lather, rinse, repeat, do it over and over again for 12 years. The first gulf war never ended; a cease fire agreement was signed, one which put the onus on Saddam to prove these things, not for the inspectors to "catch" him. He violated it over and over again, and played the UN for fools.

Meanwhile, he managed to line his pockets with billions of dollars by corrupting the UN oil for food program, and dealing with extremely high level, prominent people in countries in Europe. I'm amazed that this scandal is being swept under the carpet, really. Where's the outrage?

I agree. I think I saw this in yesterday's NYTimes. I'll have to research it more and post it here.

You're right on target here, Moki, as usual.

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
Being wrong, especially when that opinion is based on intelligence reports provided to you, is not lying. We have all been wrong; I've seen you be utterly factually wrong with many things you've said here. Does this mean you lied? I think not.

If someone tells you that Dick Cheney sodomises young boys nightly and you then go on national television and say, "Dick Cheney sodomises young boys nightly," then you are a liar (I hope) irrespective of how believable the person was that told you. Even if Mary Cheney herself told you it was true, you will still lose a slander case if it isn't factually correct. You can't smile coyly and say, "But I didn't know it wasn't true. I had good people telling me it was." If you go on TV and say, "Mary Cheney told me that Dick Cheney sodomises young boys nightly," then you aren't a liar because Mary Cheney did tell you that.

Being right is something entirely different. You might believe that Dick Cheney is a sodomiser and you might be wrong. As long as you keep it to yourself, you are just wrong and not a liar but when you state your belief then you are wrong and you are a liar irrespective of what information you were relying on.

There was nothing even remotely sane or normal or excusable about what George W. Bush did. We have all seen the information that he had. There was absolutely nothing to suggest that he couldn't wait a few more weeks. I believe that if someone came to each one of the people that read these boards and presented them with the information that Bush was presented with and gave them a choice of going in immediately and killing 100,000 Iraqis and 2,000 Americans, I believe 99% of those who truly understood the stakes would wait another few weeks. And 90% of the leaders in the world relying on much of the same information that Bush had understood what it meant and decided that the stakes weren't so high that people had to start dying immediately.

Certainly, if I knew that hundreds of thousands of lives depended on what I posted in these fora, every single word I posted would be 18 carat gold gospel.

Originally posted by moki:
Again, please review the number of intelligence agencies around the world that believed what Bush stated was true (indeed, his statements were based on their reports).

You show me one intelligence agency outside of the US and UK that said that they KNEW Iraq had WMD, that said that Saddam had WMD under palm trees in Western Iraq, that said that he had mobile labs on trains and trucks, nuclear weapons etc. Other intelligence agencies and other countries based their information on the same thing the Americans did - UNSCOM reports which extrapolated worst case scenarios from what Iraq had proved. Everyone used the worst case scenario because they wanted to be prepared but intelligent people, some world leaders among them, realised that the worst case scenario is very rarely the reality on the ground.

For God's sake, his own people were telling Bush that half of the stuff that was being fed to him was crap. The Energy people were saying the alumininium tubes story was rubbish, congressmen were saying that the yellow cake story was rubbish, intelligence officials were saying that the reports from the UK were rubbish. The list goes on and on and on.

In the final analysis I guess it would be hard to prove that Bush lied. I think it could be proven. I think that if you kept your word and starting working towards his impeachment as you said you would if no WMD were found, then you'd find grounds for it. I believe that we need to start digging for this information because unfortunately Bush's deception is the only ground for getting rid of him. If incompetence or lack of judgement were grounds, he would have been gone long ago.

P.S. Neither the Hutton Enquiry nor the 9/11 Commission were tasked with reviewing the grounds for War in Iraq.

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
Meanwhile, he managed to line his pockets with billions of dollars by corrupting the UN oil for food program, and dealing with extremely high level, prominent people in countries in Europe. I'm amazed that this scandal is being swept under the carpet, really. Where's the outrage?

There is no scandal. And the Bush Administration knows it. Because the OFFP Scandal story comes from the same source that persuaded them to go to war - Ahmed Chalabi. Liar par excellence.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I'm sorry, but the American public at large does not really care what the reason for getting SH out is.

Does the American public care that 100,000 innocent Iraqis have died?

[Cody Dawg]

Ah, yes, here is the article that discusses in depth how Saddam manipulated and stole using the UN oil-for-food program.

The UN is worthless, IMO.

It's a great article. Here's one excerpt.

The governments of Russia, France and China also blocked U.S. efforts within the United Nations to stop abuse of the program, which was designed to get food and medicine to Iraqis through limited sales of oil.

"As the program developed, it became increasingly apparent the French, Russians, and Chinese had much to gain from maintaining the status quo," a staff subcommittee memorandum states.

The Shays investigation also concluded that the U.N. officials, including executive director Benon Sevan, also abused the oil-for-food program.

Mr. Sevan was identified in Iraqi Oil Ministry documents as having participated in a scheme by Saddam to issue vouchers to people that let them profit from illicit sales of Iraqi oil. Mr. Sevan has denied accusations that he profited from the program.

[Cody Dawg]

Troll
Does the American public care that 100,000 innocent Iraqis have died?

Of course. That's why we're there.

We also care that 100,000 Kurds have died for no reason other than genocide.



It's interesting how people seem to "forget" the Kurds, isn't it?

[Busemann]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
Of course. That's why we're there.

We also care that 100,000 Kurds have died for no reason other than genocide.



It's interesting how people seem to "forget" the Kurds, isn't it?

Oh so you think Bush invaded Iraq as a payback for Kurds. Thats pretty funny.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
We also care that 100,000 Kurds have died for no reason other than genocide.



It's interesting how people seem to "forget" the Kurds, isn't it?

Yes it is. Amazing how people forget that the Turks committed genocide on Kurds as recently as the 90's. Maybe you can tell us why you haven't invaded Turkey if you care so much about the Kurds.

[Cody Dawg]

We haven't invaded Turkey because they did not have a despot leader torturing and killing thousands of people and using UN dollars to do so.

Besides, Turkey is a progressive Muslim country that we seem to like.

And Busemann? Stop putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said "Oh so you think Bush invaded Iraq as a payback for Kurds." That's an idiotic statement.

[Randman]

I'm done with this thread. These retards would be bitching as much if Kerry won. Hatred is hatred and these imbeciles are going to try and justify their (limited and usually incorrect) viewpoints and jealousy of American influence with anyone who'll listen to their drivel.

See ya.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
We haven't invaded Turkey because they did not have a despot leader torturing and killing thousands of people and using UN dollars to do so.

Besides, Turkey is a progressive Muslim country that we seem to like.

And Busemann? Stop putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said "Oh so you think Bush invaded Iraq as a payback for Kurds." That's an idiotic statement.

Cody, you should perhaps read a bit more in depth on Turkey and the conflict with the Kurds in that country. The Kurds in Turkey fought a long and very bloody guerilla war with the Turkish state in a vain attempt to gain an independant Kurdish state in the 90's of the last century. It is estimated that around 30 000 kurds were killed during that period. From first hand accounts that I have read, the Kurds have had an extremely hard time under the Turkish state in general. Not only was their language completely forbidden, i.e. simply speaking the Kurdish language was a reason to get thrown in jail, but the mere mention of the word "Kurdistan", i.e. meaning a seperate Kurdish people or nation, was illegal. the Turks themselves referred to the Kurds as "Mountain Turks" if you can believe it.

Now, the Kurds were anything but angels and their military wing, the PKK, did use terrorism to further its goals in that they blew up some tourist hotels in the 90's. But, by and large, the Kurds were the ones who got the short end of the stick from the Turks.

The civil war only came to an end after the leader of the PKK, Abdullah �celan, was kidnapped by the Turkish secret service and sentenced to life imprisonment. the fact that Kurds are actually allowed to speak their own language today has soley to do with the fact that the EU made emancipation of the Kurds one of the prerequisites for the Turks to join the EU.

There is not much of a difference in the way that Saddam handled the Kurdish guerilla war to get a seperate Kurdish state in Iraq and the way that the Turks handled it, with the exception that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds and the Turks simply used tanks and jet aircraft.

Even with the US invasion of Iraq, the Turks made it very clear to the US that they would invade northern Iraq immediately if the US allowed the Kurds to form a seperate state from Iraq. The US has aquiessed to the Turkish demands. One could even call it "appeasement" if one wanted to be particularly facaetious.

Real world politics has a lot less to do with so called "liberation" and "freedom" than the political propaganda that the government uses would admit.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
We haven't invaded Turkey because they did not have a despot leader torturing and killing thousands of people and using UN dollars to do so.

Sigh. You often start arguing before you have any idea what you're talking about.

First off, you clearly don't know what the UN OFFP was. None of the money that Saddam got from the OFFP came from the UN. It wasn't "UN dollars". The UN does not buy oil. The money came from companies and governments. The way it worked basically, was that Iraq would go to the OFFP and propose a deal with a certain company, say an oil company in the UK. The UN would check the contract and submit it to the UNSC for approval. The members of the UNSC, the USA included would then approve the contract. The UN would then make sure that Iraq didn't get arms when the contract was for medicine. They would also make sure that the UK company paid the money through a special account to Iraq.

Second, you clearly don't have a clue about what has been going on in the Kurdish part of Turkey. Look it up. Turkey is as guilty as Saddam is. They've killed and tortured thousands of Kurds, notably putting down an uprising through genocide just after the first Gulf War. Your suggestion that the plight of the Kurds had anything to do with the US invading Iraq is laughable.

[Busemann]

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
We haven't invaded Turkey because they did not have a despot leader torturing and killing thousands of people and using UN dollars to do so.

Besides, Turkey is a progressive Muslim country that we seem to like.

How refreshingly naive.

Just for the record, do you know *anything* about the Kurd/Turkey situation at all?

[moki]

Originally posted by Troll:
Does the American public care that 100,000 innocent Iraqis have died?

Do you care that 100,000 Iraqi innocents have NOT died? Or is it just too good of a sensationalist headline for you to resist? Do you care about truth, or do you care about making the USA look bad?

Two-thirds of violent deaths in the study were reported in Fallujah, the insurgent held city

They are all "Iraqi innocents" right? They weren't Saddam loyalists killing our troops and Iraqi troops. They weren't terrorists blowing up random people in mosques. No, no... the highly targeted air strikes did nothing but kill innocent women, children, and babies!!!

Repeat after me: insurgents and terrorists are not innocent civilians. They can surrender, and they can help build a prosperous, free, democratic Iraq, or they can choose to keep on blowing up buses, random people on the street, kidnapping and beheading people, and attacking the coalition troops.

Please. And keep in mind that this oft-repeated number is an *estimate* that was placed in an editorial article... insert huge grain of salt, please.

The Iraqis who are opposed to the US also know the most effective weapon they have is propaganda (they've seen the success of the palestineans) When some surveyer knocks on their door and asks 'How many people in this household have died in the last 18 months due to the US?'

The answer will all to often be an outragous made up number because they know this can help make the US look bad.

[Busemann]

Originally posted by moki:
Do you care that 100,000 Iraqi innocents have NOT died? Or is it just too good of a sensationalist headline for you to resist? Do you care about truth, or do you care about making the USA look bad?

Two-thirds of violent deaths in the study were reported in Fallujah, the insurgent held city

They are all "Iraqi innocents" right? They weren't Saddam loyalists killing our troops and Iraqi troops. They weren't terrorists blowing up random people in mosques. No, no... the highly targeted air strikes did nothing but kill innocent women, children, and babies!!!

Please. And keep in mind that this oft-repeated number is an *estimate* that was placed in an editorial article... insert huge grain of salt, please.

The Iraqis who are opposed to the US also know the most effective weapon they have is propaganda (they've seen the success of the palestineans) When some surveyer knocks on their door and asks 'How many people in this household have died in the last 18 months due to the US?'

The answer will all to often be an outragous made up number because they know this can help make the US look bad.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

I wouldn't say it's just "some surveyer" conducting the tests. Besides, the 100.000 mark isn't really that unrealistic in a war like this. Even if the death toll is 30.000, it's hardly justifiable in a "pre-emptive" war.

[moki]

Originally posted by Busemann:
How refreshingly naive.

Just for the record, do you know *anything* about the Kurd/Turkey situation at all?

I know the situation well; but do I have to respond to Troll's red herring argument? What's the point?

[moki]

Originally posted by Busemann:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

Yes. Read the article you've cited. The majority of the deaths were in insurgent and terrorist haven Falluja. The numbers were obtained by asking people how many of the people they'd know were killed. It's plain that they can't win militarily, so propaganda is their route, and it's working. I'm sure all of the insurgents/terrorists in Falluja told the truth, right?

The person who conducted the survey was against the war to begin with; I'm sure that this had nothing to do with the findings, right?

They then extrapolated these findings from various hotspots across all of Iraq -- how does that make sense?

Richard Peto, who is professor of medical statistics at Oxford University, cautioned AP the researchers may have zoned in on hotspots that might not be representative of the death toll across Iraq

The report makes a number of bad assumptions:

1) That they are being told the truth regarding deaths
2) That everyone who died was an "innocent civilian"
3) That the findings in hotspots like Falluja can be extrapolated to the rest of the country

[Troll]

Originally posted by moki:
Two-thirds of violent deaths in the study were reported in Fallujah, the insurgent held city

You sir are the one that needs to go and read that report!! "The experts from the United States and Iraq said most of those who died were women and children and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most of the violent deaths."

Your excuse that the bulk of the deaths are in the Sunni Triangle is lame. Why is there a conflict in the Sunni Triangle? BECAUSE GEORGE BUSH INVADED IRAQ. Cause and effect Moki. Bush invaded and 100,000 people have died. You can't blame the people that were invaded for the deaths because they defended themselves against invasion. The people in Fallujah have a right to resist. One might even say, as the French did in World War II, that they have a DUTY to resist. Are you seriously trying to say it's their fault because they didn't welcome a foreign power into their country to steal their resources, depose their government, kill their soldiers and civilians etc? For the most part (foreigners represent less than 5% of the members of the Insurgency according to the US Army) they are defending their country against a foreign invasion. If Bush didn't expect people to resist and to get killed resisting, then he's more cooked than I thought he was!

15,000 entirely innocent people died during the actual invasion. A total of 100,000 people have died, the majority of them women and children over the whole period. Either of those numbers is a load. 3,000 people died on 9/11 just to put things into perspective. Why did those Iraqis die, Moki? Because George Bush preferred a violent resolution to a peaceful resolution? Why did he prefer a violent resolution? Because he was too stupid to see what everyone else did - that Iraq was not an imminent threat to anyone.

[Cody Dawg]

Randmann said
I'm done with this thread. These retards would be bitching as much if Kerry won. Hatred is hatred and these imbeciles are going to try and justify their (limited and usually incorrect) viewpoints and jealousy of American influence with anyone who'll listen to their (limited and usually incorrect) viewpoints and jealousy of American influence with anyone who'll listen to their drivel.

See ya.

Moki, take a cue from Randmann. I am.

See ya.

(Have fun arguing with yourselves.)

[GORDYmac]

Bye-ku for John Kerry

Served in Vietnam:
A grateful nation thanks him
And says, "That's enough"


From the Wall Street Journal today.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Busemann:
Just for the record, do you know *anything* about the Kurd/Turkey situation at all?

Is it just me, or did anyone else first see the words Turd/Kurkey instead of Kurd/Turkey in that sentence?

Maybe it's because I just got back from lunch...

[ironknee]

the nerds have taken over the nation

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by GORDYmac:
Bye-ku for John Kerry

Served in Vietnam:
A grateful nation thanks him
And says, "That's enough"


From the Wall Street Journal today.

"That'll do pig, that'll do."

[Logic]

Linky

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Logic:
Linky

[Shaddim]

Sorry, I don't buy it. I've seen the way Northerners behave and function, and the majority operate on a noticeably lower level.

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Logic:
Linky

While it's a page that makes us "feel better", it still provides no scientific evidence of anything. The page creator himself doesn't even say he's sure it's accurate. Not to mention, looking at the "purple" maps, even those states are mostly split with the scales just tipped to one side or the other. So if the average IQ of Mississippi is 85, then that data is from both the left and the right.

Unless of course that the Left is all higher than 85 and the Right is all lower than 85, therefore averaging out.

[Joshua]

First, you should be aware that the book those "statistics" are taken from basically argues that poor nations are poor because their populations are stupid (with Africa, I believe, being the "stupidest" continent). Logic and lil'babykitten might find it particularly interesting that most of the Middle Eastern populations were ranked near the bottom of the intelligence scale, below even Mississippi.

Second, even if these intelligence statistics are valid, they're useless without a more detailed breakdown within each state. If you've seen the county voting maps, you know many of the Democratic states are only considered Democratic because they have very liberal urban centers. I'm not sure if such detailed intelligence figures even exist, but I suspect they wouldn't support the chart in the link. For example, according to census data, the majority of highly educated Americans live in balanced metropolitan / non-metropolitan areas (read: the suburbs).