I don't think the answer is yes, but this is good to read

[b.c.]

....Tell us more about what happened.

YOU'VE BEEN HAD!!

If you can't figure that out by now, trying to explain it sure as fuck won't make a difference.

 

[B_spiker067]

Those 6 posts were for the benefit of those more like minded. It gave them more/better points to debate with.

 

[B_spiker067]

ok, so this debate was going well until you flamed everyone. You are an instigator sir, and last time I checked that was a violation of the TOS.

oh....please check your facts. both democrats and republicans voted for the war in Iraq.

I'm a little chagrined, or supposed to be? How is saying that Dem's aren't anti-American a flame? Or is it something else?

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Here we go again...

 

[maxcok]

Those 6 posts were for the benefit of those more like minded. It gave them more/better points to debate with.

hmm . . . . well it doesn't seem to be working out that way, now does it?







not to mention, can't they come up with their own more better points? lol

 

[B_spiker067]

google-analytics help you gauge my interest? relax, i put truth out there to see if someone can put up a counter truth worth considering.

and THAT isn't working. hahahahaa.... hmmm.

they'll use it elsewhere and claim it their own, i do.

 

[deleted15807]

The number of innocent Iraqis killed, easily over 100,000,

That alone makes the very concept of 'we did the right thing' just morally incomprehensible.

 

[B_spiker067]

That alone makes the very concept of 'we did the right thing' just morally incomprehensible.

1) It was Iraqi's killing Iraqi's for the vast majority of any Iraqi body count.

2) It was stipulated that Bush fucked it up by not preparing for an occupation (which could be attributable to a PC need NOT to appear to be occupying because foolishly they didn't intend to).

3) If Iraq becomes a reasonably functioning democracy, they (Iraqi's) will assess it to have been worthwhile (i.e. the loss of life).

 

[maxcok]

1) It was Iraqi's killing Iraqi's for the vast majority of any Iraqi body count.

Yeah, I remember all those Iraqi bombs over Baghdad. And everywhere else. Killing civilians dumbass. Not to mention all the Iraqi tanks shooting at other Iraqi tanks. Then there was the Iraqi navy launching missiles at Iraq from offshore. (If it weren't so horrendous I'd be laughing my ass off right now.)

2) It was stipulated that Bush fucked it up by not preparing for an occupation (which could be attributable to a PC need NOT to appear to be occupying because foolishly they didn't intend to).

Brilliant analysis. You figured it out. What can I say?

3) If Iraq becomes a reasonably functioning democracy, they (Iraqi's) will assess it to have been worthwhile (i.e. the loss of life).

Yeah, I would ask a few Iraquis about that. (notice no apostrophe) Maybe some that lost their entire family for starters, or little girls who have been gangraped, or . . .

google-analytics help you gauge my interest? relax, i put truth out there to see if someone can put up a counter truth worth considering.

and THAT isn't working. hahahahaa.... hmmm.

they'll use it elsewhere and claim it their own, i do.

What the Hell are you even talking about?
google-analytics? counter truth??? hahaha....hm.

Seriously dude, whatever you're smoking, you need to stop.

 

[maxcok]

That alone makes the very concept of 'we did the right thing' just morally incomprehensible.

Sadly, you don't hear much about them in the discussion.

 

[B_spiker067]

1) It was Iraqi's killing Iraqi's for the vast majority of any Iraqi body count.

Yeah, I remember all those Iraqi bombs over Baghdad. And everywhere else. Killing civilians dumbass. Not to mention all the Iraqi tanks shooting at other Iraqi tanks. Then there was the Iraqi navy launching missiles at Iraq from offshore. (If it weren't so horrendous I'd be laughing my ass off right now.)

2) It was stipulated that Bush fucked it up by not preparing for an occupation (which could be attributable to a PC need NOT to appear to be occupying because foolishly they didn't intend to).

Brilliant analysis. You figured it out. What can I say?

3) If Iraq becomes a reasonably functioning democracy, they (Iraqi's) will assess it to have been worthwhile (i.e. the loss of life).

Yeah, I would ask a few Iraquis about that. (notice no apostrophe) Maybe some that lost their entire family for starters, or little girls who have been gangraped, or . . .

You're one of the most foolish people allowed to post on the internet.

Any true Iraqi body count is beyond being known and the estimates are all over the place. Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even so estimates that would be near 100,000 has coalition forces responsible for 37% of casualties with most being combatant deaths. As the number gets far larger those numbers are Iraqis killing Iraqis, otherwise you'd have people believe that the men in the coalition forces are homicidal maniacs.

The lack of morality onus by far lies with Iraqi murderers.

The foolish part is that you and your friend would seem to imply that war has no deaths and that combatants shouldn't die even if they are doing so at the behest of evil men (Saddam & Sons and insurgents). That somehow allowing Saddam to return to developing WMDs and creating a regional arms race is a more morally just action. Very foolish perspective.

 

[maxcok]

You're one of the most foolish people allowed to post on the internet.

Any true Iraqi body count is beyond being known and the estimates are all over the place. Casualties of the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even so estimates that would be near 100,000 has coalition forces responsible for 37% of casualties with most being combatant deaths. As the number gets far larger those numbers are Iraqis killing Iraqis, otherwise you'd have people believe that the men in the coalition forces are homicidal maniacs.

The lack of morality onus by far lies with Iraqi murderers.

The foolish part is that you and your friend would seem to imply that war has no deaths and that combatants shouldn't die even if they are doing so at the behest of evil men (Saddam & Sons and insurgents). That somehow allowing Saddam to return to developing WMDs and creating a regional arms race is a more morally just action. Very foolish perspective.

You are correct in saying that estimates of Iraqi dead as a result of the invasion are all over the place. You're also correct to say the true number is unknown, actually unknowable. That's how it is in wars.

The Wiki article you cited offers more than a half dozen data sources with estimates of the number of Iraqis killed. The lowest estimate is in the range of 100,000 - at least one is over 1,000,000. I personally believe the Lancet survey may be closest to the mark - 655,000 published in October 2006. Though surely that number has increased significantly since, particularly in view of the amount of violence in the past few years. And despite the premature claims of the previous administration, I don't think we're yet ready to declare "Mission Accomplished".

In spite of my personal view - that the number of dead as a result of the invasion and its aftermath is much higher than 100,000 by many times over - I referred to that lowest estimate in my post, "easily over 100,000" killed. I don't follow your parsing of the 37% killed by coalition forces (uncited) or where you're trying to go with that. I also don't understand your meaning in this line: "The lack of morality onus by far lies with Iraqi murderers."

Dead is dead as far as I'm concerned. 10,000 - 100,000 - 1,000,000 - really, what's your point?
Do they matter less because they were foreigners? Middle Eastern? I also believe war should only be considered as an option when all other options have failed, and to prevent even greater devastation and loss of life.

Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655000


"You're one of the most foolish people allowed to post on the internet."

I am no fool. Regardless, anyone, no matter how foolish, is allowed to post on the internet as far as I can tell. I see much evidence of this. That is a foolish statement. Ironic.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

you and your friend would seem to imply that war has no deaths and that combatants shouldn't die even if they are doing so at the behest of evil men (Saddam & Sons and insurgents).

As friends being a code word for "Democrats" (because you're just not that clever), I would like for you to find any statement where myself or any person you don't like suggested that there were no deaths in Iraq. I'm more than certain you'll never find such a remark, nor will you ever find a sentence that even comes close to the obviously false distortion you're now spewing.

As for Saddam returning? That's just another pathetic Republican scare tactic where previous statements from certain comedians of even Iraqis was blown completely out of context. All it took was for someone like Bill Maher to make a sarcastically worded anti-war statement by comparing how the civilian state of Iraq was before and after the death of Saddam, and that is now supposed to be some kind of admittance that some Americans want him back. Talk about foolish people... the fact that you allow your cranium to make such a large, grand canyon-like jump to arrive to such a ridiculous conclusion speaks much more about your inability to think than any of... ahem... "my friends". Besides, it's already been proven that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and the WMDs we were lead into war to find did not exist. Alas, all we need is the paranoia from an arrogant zealot like you to suggest that we needed to stop him because he would "probably" get them.

Makes it even more ironic that many Iraqi people actually wish Saddam was back in charge. But I guess you, as an American, knows more about Iraqi politics and what the people of Iraq really want, right? Even though the closest thing you've been to the Middle East is stock film footage from Fox News? I'm sure you're going to try and twist this into some kind of "friendly endorsement" over a dictator and further reword things to make it seem as if we're against the troops or against Democracy. So, do your worst so that we can call you an idiot and set you straight... again. Because that's what you do. Over and over again.

 

[deleted15807]

3) If Iraq becomes a reasonably functioning democracy, they (Iraqi's) will assess it to have been worthwhile (i.e. the loss of life).

Since the US claims to be a christian god-fearing nation it's pretty clear 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. What part of that is ambiguous?

 

[finsuptx]

Since the US claims to be a christian god-fearing nation it's pretty clear 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. What part of that is ambiguous?

I've often asked that question. I've asked it when the AFA said we should not only kill a Killer Whale, but also its owners. Since WHEN is murder a family value (sans Corleone's or Soprano's)? I've asked it when abortion opponents open fire and kill doctors in church. I've asked it when supposed churches stand outside a soldier's private family funeral, holding signs and chanting that dead soldiers are good. I've asked it every time a group claiming to be christian acts as anything BUT Christ-like.

More death has been caused in the name of religion than any other cause. Famine, disease, racial or ethnic hatred; none of these come close to the toll religion has claimed.

 

[D_Cateryke Cheesysmell]

Vinyl, I don't think the article you supplied is very helpful to your cause. The hotspots in Anbar province are close to where the tickest of the fighting is/was in Fallujah, Abu Graib, and Ramadi. Those guys have seen a lot of shit.

While he was a thug everywhere, he was less of a thug to his coreligionists in Anbar, which, according to your source, "...produced many of the officers in Saddam's army and senior members of his toppled regime."

Do you think there might be some resentment there now that the gravy train has stopped and they're not getting all the military and civil government jobs they used to? Didn't you make the point in the reagan/50 thread that the beneficiaries of such largesse tend to look back on the political figure in question with considerable charity?

The point your article makes about disillusionment and mistrust in elections and the democratic process is equally shoddy; " Anbar still ranked lowest in terms of voter participation, with only around 40 percent of people going to vote."

Forty percent isn't bad even for a western democracy. The highest percentage of elligible Americans ever to vote in an election is 63.1% (2008) and on off-year elections it is usually 35-40%, which is right in line with the most disaffected portion of the Iraqi population. Overall the Iraqis had as good a level of voter turnout as our best ever. So it is difficult to give credence to the argument that demcracy is not taking hold there.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Vinyl, I don't think the article you supplied is very helpful to your cause. The hotspots in Anbar province are close to where the tickest of the fighting is/was in Fallujah, Abu Graib, and Ramadi. Those guys have seen a lot of shit.

While he was a thug everywhere, he was less of a thug to his coreligionists in Anbar, which, according to your source, "...produced many of the officers in Saddam's army and senior members of his toppled regime."

Do you think there might be some resentment there now that the gravy train has stopped and they're not getting all the military and civil government jobs they used to? Didn't you make the point in the reagan/50 thread that the beneficiaries of such largesse tend to look back on the political figure in question with considerable charity?

The point your article makes about disillusionment and mistrust in elections and the democratic process is equally shoddy; " Anbar still ranked lowest in terms of voter participation, with only around 40 percent of people going to vote."

Forty percent isn't bad even for a western democracy. The highest percentage of elligible Americans ever to vote in an election is 63.1% (2008) and on off-year elections it is usually 35-40%, which is right in line with the most disaffected portion of the Iraqi population. Overall the Iraqis had as good a level of voter turnout as our best ever. So it is difficult to give credence to the argument that demcracy is not taking hold there.

I could have explained that better. Sorry about that.
The point on listing that story wasn't to make any substantial argument supporting dictatorship or denouncing Democracy. Some people think their way of life is the best one worth living, and based on that ideology try to force others adhere to what they believe is best for them. I've always looked at the attempts to "bring Democracy" to a foreign country as a very arrogant, brazen and self indulgent thing to do. Live & let live.

While it cool to know that people are having an election to choose who will govern them, it would also be advisable that we allow Iraq to run their country the way they see fit. Not everyone, or every country, is poised to run as a true Democracy and it's not up to us to make sure they do even if some people fear that a few of their zealots may be out to get them.

 

[B_spiker067]

As friends being a code word for "Democrats" (because you're just not that clever),..

"Friend" was Sargon who was quoting death stats. You're not clever enough to follow the thread's discussion?

Saddam had a debriefer. That debriefer said that Saddam said that when the pressure was off he would return to gather WMDs. He had gathered them before and pretended he had them when he didn't for a reason. Iran TODAY is gathering WMDs. You should really learn to reason.

 

[B_spiker067]

Since the US claims to be a christian god-fearing nation it's pretty clear 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. What part of that is ambiguous?

You'd think that you'd have Christians roll over and let themselves be murdered. You'd like that? Would it make your life easier? Don't run off and pretend I'm saying Iraq was going to murder Christians. It's a larger point than that.

And nobody would have been killed if Saddam had capitulated like any reasoning human being who cared for his nation would have.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

"Friend" was Sargon who was quoting death stats. You're not clever enough to follow the thread's discussion?

How convenient of you use someone else's definition as your own defense. So, not only are you unoriginal in thinking as demonstrated with the never-ending, ticker tape styled, bullet pointed comments you regurgitate, you now need to distort and shield yourself under someone else's arguments as well? Crackin' toast, Gromit... that's very Matrix of you! Shall I call you Neo for now on?

Saddam had a debriefer. That debriefer said that Saddam said that when the pressure was off he would return to gather WMDs. He had gathered them before and pretended he had them when he didn't for a reason. Iran TODAY is gathering WMDs. You should really learn to reason.

The lesson here is really easy to figure out...
You're a scared, frightened little American who doesn't like the idea of a foreign country getting weapons to defend itself. Understand your place and be honest with that before you suggest to anyone that lives a few miles away from Ground Zero they're not coherent about our current relations with the Middle East. But while you sit in your homemade bunker, wherever that may be, clenching onto your rifle in fear of Mohammed, keep this in mind:

Knowing full well that no country in their right mind would ever use a weapon geared to destroy an entire country (if not the world) without fear of retaliation from other opposing nations with the same kind of weaponry, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that all of this clucking about WMDs is just more paranoidal stimulus for zealots like you.

Simple cause & effect here... none of which requires any detailed military insight, opinion editorials or political debate. But it does require a brain and the ability to think past the usual Liberal/Conservative bullshit... something you obviously cannot do. In all honesty, I'm very sorry that common sense reasoning haven't been covered by the pundits of Fox News yet. But when you finally get to that chapter in life, please let me know. That way, you can continue this discussion with me and you'll be able to bring more to the table than more chicken-shitted war rhetoric.

Until then, you're free to keep pretending you know something.