|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Unnatural Disaster : Iraq | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow7 Inactive Member |
UNNATURAL DISASTER IN IRAQ!!
A TvNewsLIES COMMENTARY In one sudden and tragic December moment just weeks ago, the waters of the Indian Ocean rose up to swallow nearly a hundred fifty thousand innocent people without warning. The tidal wave set off by a terribly powerful earthquake transformed tsunami into a fearful and horrifying household word, everywhere. And so it should be, when so many good people care about the deaths of innocents and the horror that can come unexpectedly from out of nowhere. FLASHBACK: MARCH, 2003 In one sudden, unstoppable moment, the combined forces of the US and its coalition partners rose up to swallow nearly 100,000 innocent people in Iraq after months of threats and warnings. This UNNATURAL DISASTER set off by a combination of American and foreign invading forces, transformed Operation Iraq Freedom into a divisive and polarizing household word, everywhere.... More:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/unnatural_disaster_in_iraq.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5706 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Well, besides the obvious idiocy of this post, I'll go ahead and respond to some of this website's well thought out and articulated writing.
The outpouring of concern and sympathy for the victims of this UNNATURAL DISASTER was immediate and overwhelming throughout most of the world, but only marginal in the United States itself. Do I need to post pics of all the mass graves Saddam is responsible for?
Photographs of flag-draped military coffins were forbidden, and the Iraqi Ministry of Heath was ordered to simply stop counting all civilian deaths. The first error in this statement is that we keep an accurate account of the US dead. Next, we keep a tally of civilian casualties. Other than that, your post is rather retarted. sp.corrected by Admin This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 01-24-2005 10:21 AM Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shadow7 Inactive Member |
If you people who love what's going on would only stop reading from the same instruction book, you might learn something. Your only response seems to be an insult...which makes it ridiculous to even carry on a conversation. Second...for the record, the US government ordered the Iraq ministry of health to stop counting all civilian casualties early in the war. Private humane organizations did all the studies regarding casualties. And, while we're at it....it's RETARDED, not your obviously retarded spelling of a word you should be very familiar with.
Geez. I thought you had to be over 13 to post here....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5706 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Hey, you're the one posting up the link to a goof-ball, left-wing, anti-war site.
But, I'll say it again since you didn't read it the first time.
Next, we keep a tally of civlin casualties. Is there anything else you would like me to clear up for you? Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: No you don't. Your spokesmen have repeatedly denied that the US tracks civilian casualties.
quote: In the first place these would be the very same graves the US administration expressed no disaproval of at the time? And secondly, the point is disengenuous becuase of course Saddam was exectuing terrorists, who of course have no rights. This is very much the argument that the US advances today.
quote: Ah the conspiracy theory in action. It's a pretty odd definition of "goofball" to indicate people who were correct on the facts, correct on the consequences, and correct to oppose the war. All you have to offer is sour grapes and abuse for those who didn;t fall for the same bullshit lies you fell for. You're just jeaolous of the rationality of the left and its basis in the real world. Furthermore, we see here the ingrained hostility to the left which is the McCarthyite legacy. This is an anti-democratic political monoculture, the political correctness of the Right. This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-18-2005 06:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Do I need to post pics of all the mass graves Saddam is responsible for? The problem with this point is that nearly all of the gross attrocities commited by Saddam and his regime were commited before the first Gulf War - we had the guy quite effectively contained in a manner that rendered him largely unable to continue to perpetrate these crimes. As the Lancet research shows the different in Civilian casualities pre-/post- the second war is in the region of 100,000 (or was, I imagine it's increased since the report was published). That's right, the difference, even given the terrible conditions Saddam kept his people under and the brutality of his regime another 100,000 have died as a result of the coalition's invasion of Iraq. Tell me, Tal, how many of your brothers, sisters, parents, grandchildren, friends and other loved ones would you be willing to see killed as a result of invasion by a foreign force on the loose promise of a future good? How much hardship would you be willing to endure? How long would you go without food, running water and the rule of law?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5706 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Next, we keep a tally of civlin casualties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No you don't. Your spokesmen have repeatedly denied that the US tracks civilian casualties.
Yes we do. And who is "our" spokesmen?
In the first place these would be the very same graves the US administration expressed no disaproval of at the time? It would have been fine with me if we would have removed him the first time.
Ah the conspiracy theory in action. It's a pretty odd definition of "goofball" to indicate people who were correct on the facts, correct on the consequences, and correct to oppose the war. *buzzer sounds* Sorry. Try again. Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5706 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
The problem with this point is that nearly all of the gross attrocities commited by Saddam and his regime were commited before the first Gulf War - *buzzer sound* Wrong. Try again.
Tell me, Tal, how many of your brothers, sisters, parents, grandchildren, friends and other loved ones would you be willing to see killed as a result of invasion by a foreign force on the loose promise of a future good? First of all, we are a liberation force, not an invasion force. Our purpose is not colonize and plant roots. Our goal is to liberate the people of Iraq, which means that they will govern themselves. Secondly, it would depend on who is killing my loved ones. In the average Iraqis case, it is foreign insurgents, or the Bathist rememnant.
How much hardship would you be willing to endure? How long would you go without food, running water and the rule of law? Who is giving the Iraqis food? Who is giving them running water? Who is trying to restore the rule of law? Answer to all the...MNF-I. Who is trying to tear down the rule of law by murdering civilians? Insurgents. Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Both Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld have explicitly stated that the US does not count civilian casualties, while standing at the Whitehouse press room podium. Of the two, the most recent was in response to the Lancet figures of 100,000 Iraqi civilians who have died as a result of the occupation. Are you totally ignorant about your own administration?
quote: I don't believe you for a second, Tal - you will do whatever the Pentagon tells you to do, and believe whatever the five sided fistagon tells you to believe. Becuase these same people, Rumsfeld and Cheney, were denouncing "leftists" like me as failing to understand the global realities when we demonstrated and campaigned against Saddams cruelty. And thats the line of dogma you reliably fall behind in every respect. Furethermore as I pointed out, all Saddam was doing was the same argument that America uses for the tirture in Guantanamo. If one is wrong then they are both wrong, but I guess you are far too "patriotic" to ever admit any of the faults of your evil state.
quote: Ha ha ha. this is loke shooting fish in a barrel. All Tal has is childish bombast, thats the entirety of his argument since his "facts" have been so thoroughly discredited. And what we see here is the same kind of blind, patriotic, stormtrooper morality that allowed Hitlers rise to power, as we have occassionally discussed on this board. Tal here would have made an excellent member of the SS, fanatically committed to "my country wrong or wrong". This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-18-2005 07:32 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Nonsense, you are an aggressor state carrying out an illegal occupation of a sovereign state. You will recall this is the same crime that Saddam committed in the invasion of Kuwait, and at the time Bush Sr. said that in the modern, post-WW2 world sovereignty had to be guaranteed.
quote: Tell it to the marines. They don't have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, they'll believe you, but nobody else.
quote: No your goal is to loot Iraq's oil wealth and smash the power of OPEC.
quote: Who destroyed food provision? The occupation army. Who destroyed water infrastructure? The occupation army. who destroyed the rule of law? The occupation army. And you have the arrogant cheek to expect gratitude for repairing what you broke? Not that you are even good at that - the US has only spent 2% of its reconstruction budget last I heard, due to "instability", but managed to spend the entirety of the UN provided funds. Apparently "instability" doesn't prevent the US spending the worlds money, only its own. You are living in a fantasy land. This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 01-24-2005 10:31 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5706 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Nonsense, you are an aggressor state carrying out an illegal occupation of a sovereign state. If you feel that is the case you are welcome to come to Iraq and make friends with the insurgents. If they don't cut your head off, they may let you blow yourself up to kill more Iraqis.
You will recall this is the same crime that Saddam committed in the invasion of Kuwait, and at the time Bush Sr. said that in the modern, post-WW2 world sovereignty had to be guaranteed. Except that Kuwait didn't have 14+ UN Resolutions against it...etc.
quote: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Our purpose is not colonize and plant roots. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tell it to the marines. They don't have to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, they'll believe you, but nobody else.
What?
No your goal is to loot Iraq's oil wealth and smash the power of OPEC. Proof that we are looting Iraq's oil? Last I checked we were pumping billions into the Iraqi infrastructure, not cashing checks with Iraqi oil.
Who destroyed food provision? The occupation army. Who destroyed water infrastructure? The occupation army. who destroyed the rule of law? The occupation army. Proof? This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 01-24-2005 10:34 AM Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8 No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
*buzzer sound* Wrong. Try again. You know that's a really annoying habit hardly conducive to actual debate; it's bad enough when Rrhain does it - don't learn from his bad example. Still 100,000 more dead after the war than before you haven't justified.
First of all, we are a liberation force, not an invasion force. The coalition invaded the country and overthrew the government; that is an indesputible fact. The coalition aren't conquerors but they are certainly invaders.
Our goal is to liberate the people of Iraq, which means that they will govern themselves. The given goal fluctuates so often I've lost track.
Secondly, it would depend on who is killing my loved ones. In the average Iraqis case, it is foreign insurgents, or the Bathist rememnant. Irrelevant. Every single extra person who has died wouldn't have died if we hadn't invaded. That makes them our responsibility. As for "foreign insurgents" that's simply untrue; only a tiny, tiny portion of those opposing the coalition forces in Iraq are non-iraqis.
Who is giving the Iraqis food? Who is giving them running water? Who is trying to restore the rule of law? Answer to all the...MNF-I. Good! I should bloody well hope so too. So?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
No, we don't keep a tally of civilian casualties, Tal.
Gulf News: Latest UAE news, Dubai news, Business, travel news, Dubai Gold rate, prayer time, cinema Bold added by me.
"We really don't know how many civilian deaths there have been, and we don't know how many of them can be attributed to coalition action, as opposed to action on the part of Iraqi armed forces as they defended themselves," Secretary of State Colin Powell said in a BBC interview Sunday.
Historically, the Pentagon hasn't attempted to count civilian casualties and losses resulting from U.S. military action. Military officials have given various reasons for this, citing principally the time and resources involved and the difficulty of separating damage caused by U.S. forces from damage caused by the enemy. But this time, the Bush administration is facing greater pressure to undertake at least some kind of accounting for what military authorities call "collateral damage." Before and during the war, U.S. officials repeatedly stressed the extent to which American forces were trying to avoid civilian losses by employing precision weapons, computerised target planning and restrictive rules of engagement. More than 70 per cent of the bombs and missiles used in this war were either satellite or laser-guided, according to the Pentagon. "Because this administration has put so much emphasis on the care that it has taken, it would be very difficult for them to avoid coming to some kind of assessment of how they did in this regard," said Sarah Sewall, who served in the Pentagon during the Clinton administration and now directs a study on civilian suffering in war being conducted under the auspices of Harvard University. Sewall added that it would be "unrealistic" to expect the Pentagon to come up with "a reliable figure" for civilian casualties given the "size, intensity and speed" of the U.S. campaign. But she said investigating at least some incidents would not only bolster U.S. credibility but contribute to military planning next time by understanding the actual effects of particular U.S. battlefield decisions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Pah, silly bombast.
quote: Well I point out some of those resolutions were based on the now-falsifed intelligence information the Us provided. But if this is the criteria can you please explain why you have not invaded Israel, which has been in violation of UN resolutions since 1964? This is why appealing to UN resolutions only reinforces Amercian hypocrisy - beacause you pick and choose which resolutions you feel like enforcing. And that is why we know that what made the difference in Iraq is the presence of oil.
quote: A joke; marines have more vehicles than people because they are too stupid to walk and chew gum. WW2 era.
quote: No, you are rebuilding some things, bvut that money goes straight to US companies, to whom the puppet government handed the contracts. This is a standard feature of "international development aid" and one reason why recipients of aid benefit very little from it. But the clear evidence is the enforced privatisation project, selling off Iraqi assets, again without any consent but that of the puppet government, to American companies. Iraq is being comprehensively looted. It will not even owbn the reconstructed infrastructure - American companies will and lease them back to Iraq. So Iraqi's will be paying for this destruction for decades to come.
quote: Oh please - you just bombed the country! Did you think these things all just stopped by coincidence? This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-18-2005 10:10 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1532 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hello Contracycle,
contracycle writes: Which makes sense. minimalize collateral damage. duh.. what country at war does not do this??
Both Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld have explicitly stated that the US does not count civilian casualties,,,contracycle writes: Hipocracy? yes, but it is nice not to be on the WRONG side. What is the wrong side? The side that loses. Do you honestly think the US military wont do what it takes to achieve it's objectives?
If one is wrong then they are both wrong, but I guess you are far too "patriotic" to ever admit any of the faults of your evil state.contracycle writes: Nice attempt to slander Tal by equivocating patriotism to Natzism. But what good is a military that does not follow orders? The first thing they do to a soldier in basic training is brain wash us. So what? What country doesn't do that? You have no concept of what the military is or how it operates contracycle. The US ARMY doesnt want it's soldiers walking around not performing they're duties due to a conflict of interest. Everyone knows that the US is hippocratic. So what. Countries do what they can to further they're interest..Duh. Thats how it is. Why is that so shocking? Tal is there doing his duty in harms way and you are criticizing him for being patriotic? And what we see here is the same kind of blind, patriotic, stormtrooper morality that allowed Hitlers rise to power, "One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024