| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/08/2006 10:17:58 AM · #1 |
With the recent thread about EVIL.
With our troops still getting killed on a daily basis in Iraq.
With the recent polls of Bush showing he is doing a bad job.
There is one true fact today.
It only took over 2500 deaths to get Al-Zarqawi, but we got him.
One less evil man is dead. Our troops don't have too worry about Al-Zarqawi anymore. And, I am sure Bush's ratings will climb a bit.
So, who is targeted now in Iraq? Who will take his place on the wanted list? How many more troops will be sacrafised for another evil man?
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 10:53:08 AM · #2 |
| 2500 deaths? I thought there were more than tens of thousand dead... but you're not counting collaterals, right? |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 10:57:51 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
2500 deaths? I thought there were more than tens of thousand dead... but you're not counting collaterals, right? |
Hmmmm.....good point.
Americans killed= 2500 plus.
Civilians killed= Tens of thousands.
One evil man= Priceless???????
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 10:57:53 AM · #4 |
probably only counting US troops killed, not the 400.000 Iraqis killed in the past 2 years by the US troops ;)
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 11:17:49 AM · #5 |
,,,
Message edited by author 2006-06-09 16:22:11. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 11:49:56 AM · #6 |
HAIR OF THE DOG
We have cut off the head of the Hydra,
we have turned the tiger,
one less martyr for Al Qaeda!
Limbs soaring over desert sands,
rifles in cold, dead hands,
bumper stickers proud to be Americans,
remind us what we're fighting for.
The bodies count a winning score:
all this war needs
...................................is a little more war.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 11:59:54 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
probably only counting US troops killed, not the 400.000 Iraqis killed in the past 2 years by the US troops ;) |
I am not an American, but I would like to know where you get this number from.... it sounds just a tad inflated.
Perhaps my ability to ferret out this type of information is not up to par... but I found no numbers even remotely close to those you proffer.. and would greatly appreciate being enlightened.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 12:12:22 PM · #8 |
How many people (innocent Americans, American soliers, Coalition troops, and innocent Iraqis)was Al-Zarqawi responsible for killing?
Regardless on your opinion of the war, I hope we can all agree that today is a better day then yesterday with Al-Zarqawi gone.
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 12:14:30 PM · #9 |
Not sure if you can ever prove anything, but here is an article (not hand picked, just the first one from google)
//www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2004/10/28/iraq_deaths041028.html
This is from 2004, so extrapolate as you see fit.
However, not all were killed by the US troops. Many also died from explosions... |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 12:16:24 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
How many people (innocent Americans, American soliers, Coalition troops, and innocent Iraqis)was Al-Zarqawi responsible for killing?
Regardless on your opinion of the war, I hope we can all agree that today is a better day then yesterday with Al-Zarqawi gone. |
OK, to put it in DPC perspective: you get 1s, 2s, and 3s over the first 4 days of voting, and then someone gives you an 8 with a great comment how they liked your photo a lot! You are happy, but, your average is still 2.5, and you wish you haven't entered the darn challenge to begin with.
Edit: also, it's not important WHO killed n people - all it matters that they are dead now, and for what. This includes troops, iraqis, journalists, bystanders, everyone.
Message edited by author 2006-06-08 12:18:00. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 12:26:40 PM · #11 |
However, not all were killed by the US troops. Many also died from explosions...
You are absolutely right... but my question was directed specifically to the quote made by DanSig who suggested that 400,000 deaths in Iraq were directly attributable to US Troops... A number I do not believe can be substantiated.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 12:48:06 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
... it's not important WHO killed n people - all it matters that they are dead now, and for what. This includes troops, iraqis, journalists, bystanders, everyone. |
Don't ask an American, ask an Iraqi.
FYI,
World War 1 deaths: 15 MILLION ( 9 million military, 6 million civilian )
World War 2 deaths: 62 MILLION ( 25 million military, 37 million civilians )
All dead, and for what?
I think that lots of older folks might have a good answer to that question. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 03:10:53 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by RonB:
FYI,
World War 1 deaths: 15 MILLION ( 9 million military, 6 million civilian )
World War 2 deaths: 62 MILLION ( 25 million military, 37 million civilians )
All dead, and for what?
I think that lots of older folks might have a good answer to that question. |
And how do you compare WWI and WWII with this war? The two world wars were about colonialism and teritorrial pretenses, about dividing the 3rd world among the powers in Europe, about expansion and sucking the natural resources of other countries...
This war is not even close. It is about freeing someone. From someone. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 03:45:56 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by RonB:
FYI,
World War 1 deaths: 15 MILLION ( 9 million military, 6 million civilian )
World War 2 deaths: 62 MILLION ( 25 million military, 37 million civilians )
All dead, and for what?
I think that lots of older folks might have a good answer to that question. |
And how do you compare WWI and WWII with this war? The two world wars were about colonialism and teritorrial pretenses, about dividing the 3rd world among the powers in Europe, about expansion and sucking the natural resources of other countries...
This war is not even close. It is about freeing someone. From someone. |
And oil :)
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 03:52:50 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by RonB:
FYI,
World War 1 deaths: 15 MILLION ( 9 million military, 6 million civilian )
World War 2 deaths: 62 MILLION ( 25 million military, 37 million civilians )
All dead, and for what?
I think that lots of older folks might have a good answer to that question. |
And how do you compare WWI and WWII with this war? The two world wars were about colonialism and teritorrial pretenses, about dividing the 3rd world among the powers in Europe, about expansion and sucking the natural resources of other countries...
This war is not even close. It is about freeing someone. From someone. |
Now that you've indicated that the "for what" DOES matter, why don't you tell us why the "for what " of WWI and WWII did matter, but the "for what" of this war does NOT matter.
And do it in terms that an Iraqi woman with a husband and 4 children could understand ( when translated ). |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 04:07:29 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Now that you've indicated that the "for what" DOES matter, why don't you tell us why the "for what " of WWI and WWII did matter, but the "for what" of this war does NOT matter.
And do it in terms that an Iraqi woman with a husband and 4 children could understand ( when translated ). |
I may give it a shot later tonight. However, it is hard in general to try to compare things like this when your country is attacked directly, and when you are involved in wars while your territory was not touched. Am I right when I state that US was never attacked by another country? Can someone enlighten me and give me a history lesson please? |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 04:14:47 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
However, it is hard in general to try to compare things like this when your country is attacked directly, and when you are involved in wars while your territory was not touched. Am I right when I state that US was never attacked by another country? Can someone enlighten me and give me a history lesson please? |
Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in December, 1941. I believe the Japanese shelled the beaches near San Diego or Santa Barbara a little bit, but the contiguous states were largely unscathed by direct enemy fire during WW II.
The British attacked the continental US during the War of 1812.
The US has fought with Mexico over disputed territory now part of the US (mainly Texas and California -- well waddaya know -- they both have oil too!). |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 04:31:12 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in December, 1941. I believe the Japanese shelled the beaches near San Diego or Santa Barbara a little bit, but the contiguous states were largely unscathed by direct enemy fire during WW II.
|
I said United States, not the colonies... |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 04:36:01 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Japan attacked the US at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in December, 1941. I believe the Japanese shelled the beaches near San Diego or Santa Barbara a little bit, but the contiguous states were largely unscathed by direct enemy fire during WW II.
|
I said United States, not the colonies... |
The whole thing is a colony ... you'll have to specify more precisely where and when you want that line drawn if you want more specific answers.
It was mainly "Americans" who suffered at Pearl Harbor -- it was an attack on a military base.
But I agree largely with your point -- how would we (USA residents) feel if some people were being blown up in a local Safeway or McDonaldsevery day.? |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 04:38:37 PM · #20 |
During WWII, there were *supposedly* shots fired from German subs at the coast of NC.
Of course, don't know where I learned that, so it will probably fall into the realm of fantasy. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 04:43:49 PM · #21 |
No, I;m talking about occupation, where you have foreign troops marching in the streets of US cities, when people live in fear etc.
Both Hawaii and Alaska were admitted to the US long after the end of WWII, that was my point about the colony.
//www.hawaii-nation.org/statehood.html |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 04:48:17 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Don't ask an American, ask an Iraqi. |
No, we should be asking Americans, specifically the Bush administration (but as I can't ask them, or they don't have an answer, I'll ask you), for proof of the "imminent threat" that Iraq posed to the United States. THAT is the reason we went to war in Iraq, NOT to liberate the Iraqi people. So I ask you for proof, Ron, of the asserted "imminent threat," and I assume you know what the word "imminent" means. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 05:09:24 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Don't ask an American, ask an Iraqi. |
No, we should be asking Americans, specifically the Bush administration (but as I can't ask them, or they don't have an answer, I'll ask you), for proof of the "imminent threat" that Iraq posed to the United States. THAT is the reason we went to war in Iraq, NOT to liberate the Iraqi people. So I ask you for proof, Ron, of the asserted "imminent threat," and I assume you know what the word "imminent" means. |
Sorry, Judith, but while it would be reasonable to demand that I provide proof for my own assertions, I don't feel that is reasonable to demand that I provide proof for the assertions of others. For example, some in these fora have asserted that "Bush lied". I don't feel compelled to provide proof of their assertions, since I don't agree with them. Neither would I demand that YOU provide proof of their assertions, if you DO agree with them. Now, if YOU, yourself, made that assertion, then it WOULD be reasonable to ask that you provide the proof.
And yes, I do know what "imminent" means. I also know what "baiting" means. |
|
|
|
06/08/2006 05:19:00 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
No, we should be asking Americans, specifically the Bush administration (but as I can't ask them, or they don't have an answer, I'll ask you), for proof of the "imminent threat" that Iraq posed to the United States. THAT is the reason we went to war in Iraq, NOT to liberate the Iraqi people. So I ask you for proof, Ron, of the asserted "imminent threat," and I assume you know what the word "imminent" means. |
the iminent threat is that oil supply in the world is getting low, in 20 years there will be shortage if the world doesn't find an alternative source of energy.
by invading Iraq the USA get control of the world 4rd largest oil reserve, the 13th largest oil producer, and the 11th largest oil exporter.
and by controlling Iraq, the USA are close enough to invade all the other oilcountries in the middle east.
and by controlling the world supply of oil, the USA becomes the most powerful country in the world.
it was planned to invade Iraq long before 9/11, Bush senior declared that the time would come when the war he started would be won by America, and that was 15 years ago.
9/11 was planned with the help of the US army and intelligence, the pilots of the 9/11 attack were trained by the US army, and Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, probably to attack the USA to give the USA an excuse to invade Iraq an Afganistan
|
|
|
|
06/08/2006 05:23:25 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by DanSig:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
No, we should be asking Americans, specifically the Bush administration (but as I can't ask them, or they don't have an answer, I'll ask you), for proof of the "imminent threat" that Iraq posed to the United States. THAT is the reason we went to war in Iraq, NOT to liberate the Iraqi people. So I ask you for proof, Ron, of the asserted "imminent threat," and I assume you know what the word "imminent" means. |
the iminent threat is that oil supply in the world is getting low, in 20 years there will be shortage if the world doesn't find an alternative source of energy.
by invading Iraq the USA get control of the world 4rd largest oil reserve, the 13th largest oil producer, and the 11th largest oil exporter.
and by controlling Iraq, the USA are close enough to invade all the other oilcountries in the middle east.
and by controlling the world supply of oil, the USA becomes the most powerful country in the world.
it was planned to invade Iraq long before 9/11, Bush senior declared that the time would come when the war he started would be won by America, and that was 15 years ago.
9/11 was planned with the help of the US army and intelligence, the pilots of the 9/11 attack were trained by the US army, and Bin Laden was trained by the CIA, probably to attack the USA to give the USA an excuse to invade Iraq an Afganistan |
Does the US have control of that 4th largest oil reserve? I'd like some info on that Dansig if you have it.
|
|
