Printable View
Greeting's
JUST ONE QUESTION :
Quote:
WAS IT REALLY WORTH IT ?
I'm talking about Death's of CIVILIAN, POLICE (IRAQI) and SOILDERS (coalition)
Civilian Death's : 41.509 (while figure's range from 39,171 to 43,846)
Police death's : 2,409
coalition SOILDER's : 2,872 (while number of wounded are appx. 22,000 +)
So total death's : 46,790
Seriously for those who have lost their loved one(s)...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4525412.stm
the big guys should know...
after all they planned the whole thing.
its all about one thing (oil and money) and never about human lives.
the whole thing is in more mess than it was when "you know who" was in power.
Hmmm,
Anyone notice anything odd about those statistics?
1. All those troops, all that ordnance..............and the allies haven't managed to kill a single insurgent or supporter?
2. No breakdown of who kills whom? like these suicide bombers kill lots of civilians.............. and I am sure that there has been a lot of internal "score settling"...............there usually is after the fall of a dictatorship, even a benign one such as Yugoslavia.
EDIT: Also there is no real context. For example the figure represents about 0.15% of Iraq's population and is less than road deaths in South Africa:
http://iafrica.com/news/sa/463914.htm
After 9/11 anything is woth it, can't stop till we're done over there.
As my Business stats teacher said
"Statistics don't lie, and liars use statistics"
Ask the iraqis I suppose.
So far, the bodies of 400,000 people have shown up in mass graves, including 180,000 ethnic Kurds. (This figure doesn't even count for torture or rape victims). Also, no longer are record setting numbers (literally, Iraq had the world record) of people "disappearing".
Oh! And those were civilian casualties alone. That doesnt count deaths from tabun and other chemical agents (Iraq-Iran War). So I ask, whatever the pretexts, was it worth it ?
I guess defending yourself is never worth it.
Resistance is useless. I for one welcome our new
Dalek overlords etc etc.
:cool:
Unfortunately RC Iraq isn't about defending yourselves. Afgahanistan was and is. All Iraq was about was giving Bush an easy victory to increase his ratings and justifying the fact that him and every president from now on have been voted wartime powers. Oh and probably about bowing down to your saudi arabian overlords.
I disagree with this statement completely. We aren't even fighting a war with people that had ANYTHING to do with 9/11.. Hell, the reasons we're over there (both the suspect reasons and the reasons our president gives out) don't have anything to do with 9/11 at all. Sure, he finds a way to tie it in, but hell.. It doesn't take a genius to use fear as a tool.Quote:
After 9/11 anything is woth it, can't stop till we're done over there.
Oh, and we should have stopped a LONG time ago.
EDIT: I'm moving this to Cosmos, it really belongs there.. Not only does it belong there (IMO) but also because of this discussion I feel it should be in a forum where its typically tradition for AP's not to be in the thread.. and in this thread where people state opinions, thoughts, feelings.. no AP's should be involved. Just my thought.
If iraq where about defending ourselfvs things would be different, as things stand now, no one wnats to die to make oil men richer....hell we are no talking about abandoning democracy in iraq and installing a new "big man" type leader...its time ot cut bait and get out.
Heh, just really quick.. I appreciate the greens, but yeah.. I got greens on a post saying AP's shouldn't be in Cosmos. How ironic? :P Anyways...
I semi-agree, I mean.. how do you call this aggressive "offense" against Iraq us defending ourselves? Theres a huge difference between defending yourself and attacking suspect countries. Bah, my argument still is who the hell are we to decide if another nation needs a new leader or government? Do we look at every countries leaders/elections and say, "Well, if we don't like who wins or who is in office, perhaps we should put one of our own in there instead or someone we can control." because seriously we might aswell.Quote:
If iraq where about defending ourselfvs things would be different, as things stand now, no one wnats to die to make oil men richer....hell we are no talking about abandoning democracy in iraq and installing a new "big man" type leader...its time ot cut bait and get out.
look into the bannana republics of the 70's or 80's, or look at hussains iraq, or look at pinchet, or look at south vietnam....that is basicly exactly how the US has operated for years.Quote:
I semi-agree, I mean.. how do you call this aggressive "offense" against Iraq us defending ourselves? Theres a huge difference between defending yourself and attacking suspect countries. Bah, my argument still is who the hell are we to decide if another nation needs a new leader or government? Do we look at every countries leaders/elections and say, "Well, if we don't like who wins or who is in office, perhaps we should put one of our own in there instead or someone we can control." because seriously we might aswell. [/B]
bballad you can take your argument back a lot further than that!............ it is not a US thing or even recent, the Roman Empire had puppet states as well ;)
Just one of my pet peves. sure right now what the us is doing isn't very good...we are not on the side of angles....but lets keep some historical perspective. THis may be the worst prsident post Harding, but it has been worse. Sure the us is doing very bad things right now...but we have done worse in recent memory.
Since it's week end again, atleast this was worth it
Become a speech writer for bush
This war IS about defending our nation.
Iraq DID harbor terrorists, and this President has the balls to take care of the situation, unlike our other President who sat on his ass all day.
THis was not about we don't like saddam and the way hes running Iraq so we're gonna take over. This is about our National Security and keeping this country safe.
cheyenne1212
In the words of your own goverement.
Full story
EditQuote:
Last Updated: Saturday, 9 September 2006, 00:20 GMT 01:20 UK
Saddam 'had no link to al-Qaeda'
There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.
The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.
US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link.
Opposition Democrats are accusing the White House of deliberate deception.
They say the revelation undermines the basis on which the US went to war in Iraq.
The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation.
The report comes as Mr Bush makes a series of speeches on the "war on terror" to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks.
Requests rejected
The report is the second part of the committee's analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq's weapons programme.
It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".
It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.
"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.
The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.
It also deals with the role played by inaccurate information supplied by Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the war.
Here is a second link to another article if you are willing to read it BBC analyse
How many terrorists or criminals as seen by their own people has the US harbored over the years?
The shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos come to mind. Did the Phillipines or Iran invade us? Besides when did the US get elected world cop?
Are we going to set up a police state wherever there are terrorists, we never got involved with the IRA, the Basque separists, the red brigade or the Bieder Mienhof gangs. We didn't get involved when Israeli terrorists were trying to drive the UK out of palestine either. You must only be concerned about terrorists who falsely claim to represent Islam.
This president led this country into a war that was ill advised and not publicly supported. His legacy will be one of failure. Instead of binding this country after 9/11 he further divided us. His approval rating for 9/11 and Afghanistan were very high. How much is Haliburton and Vice President Cheney making off of this war? For such a noble effort why aren't any of the Bush or Cheney clans offspring involved, I know to quote Cheney on serving in Viet Nam "I had other priorities" . We are being led by a chickenhawk and a draft dodger. Why the conservatives embraced this pair over Dole, Kemp or McCain I'll never know.
Sorry for the rant, one of the last posts pushed me out of my normal lurk mode
I sign this as one who served
Being of the Irish persuasion, I will have to disagree with that one, if you read up on any of the Kennedy's or Boston/New York politics alone, you will find that a lot of disenfranchised Irish living over here, (Toronto as well) did support the IRA through gun running and monetary as well as drugs.Quote:
we never got involved with the IRA
Also towards the end Clinton did get involved, so did Reagan and our twit Mulroney, to help with the ceasefire and eventually disarmament (still in progress).
As to the rest of your post, I have to agree... ;)
Almost 20 years ago after the total collapse of the Soviet Union. Even more so after the UN didn't mind the idea of being spinless, ineffective, hypocritical, complacent, and delegated nearly all responsibility and enforcement to the USA.Quote:
Now lets all be fair to cheyenne1212, iraq did have some terrorists camps when hussain was in charge..whats that they where all in northern iraq under the protection of our "allies" the kurds.... you don't say, well damm i guess one more time some one on the right isn't
Dalek,
When I said get involved I meant trying to stop it, the gun running you refer to certainly promoted it. I lived in South Boston for awhile, I knew about the support end.
[insert MAC ad]touche[/insert MAC ad]that's Irish for okay, got it... ;)Quote:
Originally posted here by fourdc
Dalek,
When I said get involved I meant trying to stop it, the gun running you refer to certainly promoted it. I lived in South Boston for awhile, I knew about the support end.
Edit: Is that close to one of my old haunts (Combat Zone circa 1978 to 1983)..... :cool:
Dalek,
The former Boston Combat zone was about a mile or two subway stops from Southie.
I left the area in 1977. The city of Boston cleaned up the "Adult Entertainment Zone", it's back to being "Chinatown".
Wow, too bad, just like Time's Square it's all Disney World stuff now...what a shame, we used to stay at the Park Plaza, about a block from the start of the Zone....some neighbourhoods have atmosphere, we never felt threatened in the Zone....course that could be due to the fact we only went into the Zone in groups of 5 or more...LolQuote:
Originally posted here by fourdc
Dalek,
The former Boston Combat zone was about a mile or two subway stops from Southie.
I left the area in 1977. The city of Boston cleaned up the "Adult Entertainment Zone", it's back to being "Chinatown".