 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 03 Nov 11 - 08:57 PM SSDD, bruce... Hey, man... Stick to stuff that you know about... I mean, T published right here in Mudburg a list of various organizations that have estimated the Iraqi war deaths but then went on to disqualify the ones that didn't fit his narrative... That is fact... Anyone with any critical thinking skills just needs to read the past few days posts and will see that T (and you) want to rig the game... Here are some other rigged games: Aluminum tubes Uranium cakes from Niger WMDs Saddam being involved with 9/11 45 minutes to Iraqi invasion of the US Blah, blah, blah... Blah, blah, blah... and... Blah, blah, blah... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 03 Nov 11 - 07:26 AM No, Bobert, those comments of yours have been addressed, and you ignored all comments. YOU don't get to pick out NON-factual points to prove your point, and then deny others the right to use factual ones. As I said, your use of non-substantiated opinion as facts, and refusal to defend those opinions with facts, while ignoring all facts by others has damaged your credibility. Your experience entitles you to some respect, UNTIL you insist that lies have to be true because they support your opinion. THEN any statement you make has to be looked at far more critically, and many of your perhaps valid points are discarded for lack of obvious factual basis, even if you could support them if you tried. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 02 Nov 11 - 06:59 PM In other words, he get to pick and choose "his facts" but I don't get to do the same??? Uh huh??? Sounds like the same old story... BTE, why do "T's facts" get priority, especially in light of: Aluminum tubes Uranium cakes from Niger WMDs Saddam being part of 9/11 Ignoring Hans Blix etc... Seems that I was on the correct side then but now you and T think that "T's facts" are somehow "new 'n improved"... You both lack credibility here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 02 Nov 11 - 06:40 PM No, Bobert. He excluded specifically the estimates, for reasons he gave. He is right, you are wrong IN THIS CASE. To continue to argue when you have been caught in a falsehood devalues what ever else you might say, even when it is worth hearing. I seem to recall someone saying "I mean, these morons must think that everyone out there is as dumb as they are to believe that utter crap... I don't even read folks crap that begin that way because if the first 4 or 5 words are an out right lie than I know what is going to follow... ...... Just don't bullshit me with lies right out of the gate... It's insulting to anyone with an IQ greater than that of a box of animal crackers..." So YOU need to watch the fast and loose way you make claims as to facts. There were NOT more Palestinian refugees in 1948 than the entire population of Mandate Palestine. Because YOU see a picture that YOU don't see minorities in, a group is not racist- it was pointed out that 40% of those on the stage WERE black. The OWS have been shown with people with M-16s, yet you make claims for them being peaceful-the opposite of the tea party- without knowing what you are talking about, it seems from your standard rants- they are no more OR less peaceful than the Tea Party. As long as you insist on one set of rules for those you agree with, and another for those you oppose, even your good points are made to look unreasonable. Since your standard method of replying to a request for facts is to call someone racist, or blame the right wing for the faults of the world, you have lost a lot of credibility that your experience and knowledge would otherwise entitle you to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 02 Nov 11 - 05:19 PM 109,032 104,658 110,600 178,000 151,000 654,965 1,033,000 --------- 2,322,255 divided by 7 = 331,750 average which happens to be closer to the 500,000 average that I claimed than the low ball number that T clings to... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 02 Nov 11 - 05:08 PM Nah, bruce... T gave a list of various organizations that have attempted to put a number on this... If you take the entire list that T gave and average it out it's closer to the 500,000 number... T conveniently only used the lower numbers... Do the math... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 02 Nov 11 - 02:30 PM Bobert-" the average of Iragis killed" Teribus-" .....if you take the average of Iraqis estimated to have maybe have been killed the average is in the 500,000 range If on the other hand you use actual number for those who had in fact been killed then the average is 103,158. Bobert- " all of them added up to 500,000 or so???" AVERAGE is when you add them up AND DIVIDE BY THE NUMBER OF VALUES ENTERED. YOU brought up averages, T. gave you back a comment, and YOU distorted what he said. "A lie in the pursuit of something worthwhile is still a lie." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 02 Nov 11 - 01:24 PM Yo, T... Pee in the cup... The Opinion Research Business alone is over a million yet you say that all of them added up to 500,000 or so??? Fuzzy math... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST Date: 02 Nov 11 - 01:06 PM Yer no good at math either, T..." Huh?? Let's take a look at the figures shall we Bobert? Iraqi War Logs (wikileaks) - 109,032 to 2009 Iraqi Health Ministry - 104,658 to 2009 The Associated Press - 110,600 to 2009 Iraq Body Count - 178,000 civilian and combatant deaths to 2011 Iraq Family Health Survey - 151,000 "estimated" to 2006 Lancet John Hopkins Study - 654,965 "estimated" to 2006 Opinion Research Business - 1,033,000 "estimated" to 2007 Iraqi Security Forces - 16,623 to 2010 Iraqi Insurgents - 26,320 to 2011 Media & Aid Workers - 281 to 2009 U.S. Armed Forces - 4,404 to 2010 MNF - 318 to 2009 Contractors - 1,478 to 2011 Now remove all the ESTIMATES because they mean the square root of S.F.A. and you get: Iraqi War Logs (wikileaks) - 109,032 to 2009 Iraqi Health Ministry - 104,658 to 2009 The Associated Press - 110,600 to 2009 Iraq Body Count - 178,000 civilian and combatant deaths to 2011 Iraqi Security Forces - 16,623 to 2010 Iraqi Insurgents - 26,320 to 2011 Media & Aid Workers - 281 to 2009 U.S. Armed Forces - 4,404 to 2010 MNF - 318 to 2009 Contractors - 1,478 to 2011 As we are talking about IRAQI Deaths we remove the "others" and we get: Iraqi War Logs (wikileaks) - 109,032 to 2009 Iraqi Health Ministry - 104,658 to 2009 The Associated Press - 110,600 to 2009 Iraq Body Count - 148,557 civilian deaths to 2011 Iraqi Security Forces - 16,623 to 2010 Iraqi Insurgents - 26,320 to 2011 Psst Bobert the last two giving Iraqi combatant deaths are from a common source so number of sources is 5 not 6 That lot totted up comes to 515,790 from five sources therefore the average is 515,790 divided by 5 = 103,158 [posted by Teribus] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 01 Nov 11 - 04:30 PM Oh no Stringsinger not just the military, or Fox News. There were after all only too many reporters from Western MSM who were out there hoping to see the US humbled and defeated and were telling us all that the "war" could not be won, the fact that after may 2003 we weren't fighting one seems to have escaped their notice. They're the same ones doing the same in Afghanistan, a band wagon they jumped on when the US defeat in Iraq didn't pan out and the "Surge" worked in 2006/2007. Bet Petraeus must laugh his socks off every time he sees Joe Biden. Lots of different organisations collected date regarding deaths in Iraq - that is actual data Bobert not batch sampled ESTIMATES. Blackwater does not even exist any longer and besides neither the Blackwater of old or any successor is no longer licenced to work inside Iraq and have not been for some time now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 01 Nov 11 - 03:20 PM And by whose estimates? The military who did the killing? Foxes are guarding the henhouse again. Truth is we will never know because the facts are being covered by propaganda. Bodies were not allowed even to be shown on TV. This is a shadow war that was never accepted unconditionally by the American people and the real casualty of the war are not just the amount of innocent iraqi civilians but the credibility of the US as an honest international participant. The military industrial complex showed us that they were not to be trusted as the rest of the world is finding out. Now Blackwater remains and the contractors outnumber the soldiers who are leaving. The Bush and Obama administration has not learned the lesson that world peace and justice is not achieved by sanguinary means. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 01 Nov 11 - 08:48 AM Yer no good at math either, T... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 01 Nov 11 - 01:34 AM No Bobert to correct your statement: .....if you take the average of Iraqis estimated to have maybe have been killed the average is in the 500,000 range If on the other hand you use actual number for those who had in fact been killed then the average is 103,158. But as previously stated "Estimates of those that may have been killed Bobert are not in fact deaths. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 31 Oct 11 - 07:55 PM Just using T-Bird's numbers, if you take the average of Iragis killed the average is in the 500,000 range... Just what I said... Thanks, T... You proved my point... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 31 Oct 11 - 07:47 PM Only one study that admits that their figures are only estimates put the number at over 1 million. Estimates of those that may have been killed Bobert are not in fact deaths. A distinction that seems to be far beyond your grasp or comprehension All the rest seem to vary between 92,000 and 223,000 but all are actually based on bodies not batch sampled "estimates". Care to tell us Bobert why those who conducted those batch sampled surveys refused to allow peer review of their data, or provide anyone with the details of the questions asked? Iraq Body Count have two sets of figures, their lower figure represents actual deaths verified and substantiated by two independent sources, their upper figure represents actual deaths substantiated by only one source. From cross-checks with Iraqi Government Agencies and Ministries their figures have proved to be correct within + or minus 13%. Wikileaks War Logs could also add an additional 15,000 - so 112,726 + 13% + 15,000 = 142,381 civilian deaths Iraqi War Logs (wikileaks) - 109,032 to 2009 Iraqi Health Ministry - 104,658 to 2009 The Associated Press - 110,600 to 2009 Iraq Body Count - 178,000 civilian and combatant deaths to 2011 Iraq Family Health Survey - 151,000 "estimated" to 2006 Lancet John Hopkins Study - 654,965 "estimated" to 2006 Opinion Research Business - 1,033,000 "estimated" to 2007 Iraqi Security Forces - 16,623 to 2010 Iraqi Insurgents - 26,320 to 2011 Media & Aid Workers - 281 to 2009 U.S. Armed Forces - 4,404 to 2010 MNF - 318 to 2009 Contractors - 1,478 to 2011 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:44 PM That source is so bogus that it is all but laughable... Google up "Iraq War Deaths" and you'll see that these numbers are the lowest of the lowest of the low... I mean, if just took the average of all the sites on the internet it would be on the plus side of 500,000 with several over a million... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 31 Oct 11 - 05:41 PM Sorry Bobert I am unable to respond but I refer you to Iraq Body Count for figures which agree roughly with everybody else's except for your discredited John Hopkins Study and the ORB one both of which are ripped apart by IBC.org. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 31 Oct 11 - 10:36 AM From, Iraq Body Count. Following the six week "Shock and Awe" invasion phase (March 19 - May 1, 2003), which alone caused the deaths of some 7,400 civilians, the violent death toll has steadily risen year-on-year. There were 6,332 reported civilian deaths in the 10.5 months following the initial invasion in year one, or 20 per day; 11,312 in year two, 55% up on year one's daily rate; 14,910 in year three (32% up on year two); and a staggering 26,540 in year four (78% up on year three, and averaging 74 per day). Not counting the 7,400 invasion-phase deaths, four times as many people were killed in the last year as in the first. And from the invasion to the present, at least 110,000 civilians have been wounded, 38,000 of them during year four. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 31 Oct 11 - 09:55 AM I don't have to "wiggle", T... The blood is on your hands... Not mine... Maybe you can provide us with your sources that that the US/UK invasion was only responsible for a "slight" number of deaths... But you won't because there is no such source... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 31 Oct 11 - 02:18 AM "With 30,000 sorties flown over Iraq after the initial invasion it's not credible that the death toll was slight..." Bobert confuses the word "sorties" with the word "missions" 30,000 sorties means that on 30,000 occasions an aircraft took off and then that aircraft landed out of that number of flights there were only 505 assigned to bombing missions and those were almost totally against military targets the remainder were against time sensitive Government targets. Bobert wittered on about 3,000 missiles per day (Patriots IIRC) raining down on Baghdad in fact just over 800 missiles were fired in the entire conflict. Now then Bobert can explain how many of those 30,000 "sorties" were flown where the aircraft flying those sorties were not even armed, transport flights, helicopter troop movements, recon flights, flights by tanker aircraft required for air-to-air refuelling, etc. World War II = Tens of thousands of aircraft, over 1.5 million tons of bombs dropped on Germany alone and that resulted in slightly less than 600,000 fatalities in six years. Iraq = 1800 aircraft of all types used for less that six months, with far lower weapons payloads and Bobert wants to convince us that this effort by 505 aircraft resulted in fatalities exceeding 1 million people - laughable. Oh and before you wriggle Bobert your now totally discredited John Hopkins Study put those deaths down to US Bombing, the object of the George Soros financed study was after all to discredit the US administration of GWB and affect the 2004 Presidential election and the 2006 mid-terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:08 PM Other than making a proclamation, Keith, what are your sources... With 30,000 sorties flown over Iraq after the initial invasion it's not credible that the death toll was slight... Granted, the tribal warfare that the invasion brought about killed a lot of folks who wouldn't have been killed had the invasio not taken place but to dismiss the 30,000 sorties and millions of rounds of ammunition that were fired by the US/UK as "slight" defies logic... Maybe you'd like to provide your sources... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: akenaton Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:01 PM I would agree with that Keith, but those who destroy the prevailing system of law and order, must bear responsibility for the resulting bloodbath. Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya,will form a Muslim axis, more will join them, There is a "fifth columb" in most western countries. The exercise was an unmitigated disaster, not only for the dead in these countries, but for the "Free", "Democratic", West. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Oct 11 - 03:37 PM It is no myth that the death toll, especially of civilians, was very slight in the war against Sadaam. The horrors came after that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 30 Oct 11 - 03:27 PM Oh really??? Where on earth did you get that mythology, Keith??? Fox??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 30 Oct 11 - 02:17 PM Upwards of a million Iraqis slaughtered by the US/UK to get rid of Saddam, T??? There were very few deaths that can be blamed on the coalition. There were many who died (though much less than a million) at the hands of the various insurgents, and many more would have died but for the efforts and great sacrifice of the coalition force. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 30 Oct 11 - 12:05 PM Prove it Bobert, that is all you have to do - Prove it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 30 Oct 11 - 11:56 AM Upwards of a million Iraqis slaughtered by the US/UK to get rid of Saddam, T??? Hell no, Iraq isn't better off... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Donuel Date: 30 Oct 11 - 05:33 AM Most madmen fail to see their own irrationality. The few who do see, tend to blame objective mistakes made by others. It is but a rare individidual who examines their life and positions and atones by doing the right things for restitution and not retribution. I salute the rare individual. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 30 Oct 11 - 04:54 AM Eh Bobert could we have that again in some sort of intelligible form? As for being wrong? Almost everything that you predicted has not come to pass. Where is the Arab Spring in Iraq? Doesn't need one does it? It was gifted its opportunity to embrace representative democracy in 2003. Think that what is happening in Ba'athist Syria today is bad? Just think how Saddam's Ba'athist Iraq would have reacted. Stringsinger anything at all by way of substantiation for what you claim to be the case in your little rant?? Anything to dispute the population figures or reported per capita earnings? I got mine from census information and the per capita earnings from economic reports So Iraq is infected with radiation from bombs is it? What bombs used against Iraq were capable of irradiating anything? I would love to hear the response to that question, but somehow doubt that I will get one. Did I ask the women comes the bleat from Akenaton Which women specifically Akenaton and ask them what? Are they pleased that they are no longer being pulled off the streets to be raped by the Fedayeen Saddam under the direction of Saddam's sons? Are they pleased that because of the departure of Saddam's regime that they can no longer be branded as prostitutes and beheaded without trial in public just because of the supposed political stances of the male members of their families? Shia Arab women in Iraq will today be as oppressed as they ever were in Saddam's time, they are oppressed not by the political rulers of the country but by the supposed religious dictat of their own menfolk. Is Iraq bettwe off today than at anytime since Saddam Hussein came to power? Of course it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 29 Oct 11 - 09:27 PM I love it... Now after those of us who who told you so have been 100% vindicated ya'll wrongies just never seem to get enough of having it rubbed in your faces... So to Sawz and T-Bird... Rub, rub, rub... Want more??? Keep posting to this thread... I'll bag up so cat poo to add to the rest of the rub... Ya'll is some sick people... Bad 'nuff being a wrong but ya'll gloat in ya'll's wrongness... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Stringsinger Date: 29 Oct 11 - 11:26 AM It was good that the US were booted out of Iraq after trashing their country, destroying their museums, having stolen money from the reconstruction, while Blackwater, the inhuman contractors remain there to bully innocent Iraqis, the US Embassy about the size of the Vatican remains to dominate and oppress the Iraqi people and misleading stats, propaganda and accounting about what is really going on there persist. Iraq was a waste of innocent lives, infecting the country with radiation from bombs, useless corruption by the US military, and a whopping debt for the US which would have been better spent on infrastructure, education, economic equality while Wall Street robs our citizens, hospitals and affordable health care. In short, the incursion into Iraq was a total waste. I give little credence to any peculiar article of propaganda that turns up in the Guardian or elsewhere and these erroneous stats which sound like they come out of someone's behind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: akenaton Date: 29 Oct 11 - 03:40 AM Did you ask the women Teribus? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: GUEST,Teribus Date: 29 Oct 11 - 03:06 AM How's Iraq doing since I last checked? "Iraqi population 2009 - 31.2million people income per capita $2,108 - Result of "our near two decades of attacks and crippling sanctions" (In 6 years the population has increased by 22.6%, or by an average of 3.8% per year - per capita income has increased 400%) Iraqi Population 2011 - 30.39million people, income per capita $3,800. So slight fall in population and income increased by 80% in two years. Now what were the predictions mentioned in this thread? The US would never leave? They will ALL be home by the end of this year. The US went into Iraq to steal Iraq's Oil? Of the operating, development and exploration licences awarded so far, and there have been dozens of them, how many have gone to US Companies? ONE and that only in partnership. The US pays for oil from Iraq at exactly the same price as everyone else does - Some theft eh? Who did get the licences? In the main Iraq's traditional trading partners - Russia, France, China. Iraq would fall apart? Hasn't happened and it doesn't look as though it is likely to happen. Was Iraq a mistake?? - Hell No. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Oct 11 - 10:22 AM Larry King interview with Joe Biden Feb 2010: "I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. [I missed that event]You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 28 Oct 11 - 09:57 AM I still never said wars won't go away. This is another example of Bobert putting words into other people's mouths while he accuses others of twisting the facts. 'we have a culure that thinks, "Geeze, we hate war but it is inevitable"' Bobert makes up a phrase, puts it in quotes and attributes it to others in an effort to stir up a verbal war. He thrives on his stinkbombs and brags about how many posts were made to such and such a thread. Have another toke and a pull on tha jug Bobert. Stay in outer space. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 14 Oct 10 - 08:14 PM Oh, so now we are to believe that the US was to be trusted??? Hmmmmm??? Given the history in the region Saddam had every reason to not trust US... I mean, we didn't exactly have a good track record there... Saddam did what he was backed into having to do... He was bluffing Iran because he lived in daily fear that Iran was going to attack him... Now here was the good ol' US lieing A with a cowboy for presdient who everyone knew was itching fir a new war ("Wag the Dog") and Saddam did the only thing he could... Another completely bogus argument laid to rest... As fir wars... Think about it, Sawz... We are now into a globalized, interlocking world economy... That changes a lot of stuff... One of which is the real possibility that war is for 3rd worlders and not for major players... It is too disruptive to the moving of goods, services, labor, materials, etc... War interupts that flow... So we have an opportunity here to break the cycle... But as long as we have a culure that thinks, "Geeze, we hate war but it is inevitable" then we will have, ahhhhhhh, wars... Time to rethink rather than reload... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 14 Oct 10 - 02:54 PM "And mudering on heck of a lot of people because Sawz says that wars won't go away is another seriously flawed argument" "I agree wars are stupid but I don't think they ever will go away." What is seriously flawed here? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Oct 10 - 11:07 PM Saddam could have gotten out alive and not one person would have died. He would have lived in luxury the rest of his life. All of his family would be alive. He chose otherwise. Damn man, I would have opted out even if I was right and Bush was wrong. Did the fool really think he would win? He got the big head. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 10 - 11:01 PM No, they can't, Sawz... But they can order up an invasion of an entire country and kill upwards of a million innocent folks that ain't Saddam??? I don't buy that argument, Sawz... There is no logic or morality to it... Get real... Presidents do what they want to do... The US killed President Diem in Vietnam, didn't it??? Might of fact, the US kills all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons... But arguing that the only way to get Saddam was to murder on heck of a lot of innocent people, many of them women and kids and old people because we have some law is a flawed argument... And mudering on heck of a lot of people because Sawz says that wars won't go away is another seriously flawed argument... As for Obama and Afganistan??? That's purdy messed up on his part... I understand that he was politically boxed in but it does not make the Afgan War any less immoral... As for wars never going away??? Until people get a mindset that they are absolutely not acceptable, yeah, we'll have 'um but... ... in an ever tribalized and global world economy their days are numbered... At least for the countries that consider themselves to be modern and industrialized... But until moral people can have a piece (peace) of the microphone that culture won't change... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Oct 10 - 10:41 PM By executive order, Presidents just can't just blow away the leader of a country. It has to be done in the context of war, not assassination. They have to send their troops in to be killed off by the other guy's troops and so on. Ever watch the old revolutionary war reenactments? Two armies face each other. Everybody waits for the leaders to bring their sword down. One row on each side stands up to shoot and be shot at while another row squats down to get out of the way and reload. Total stupidity and you cannot just shoot the commander of the other side and end it immediately. That would be counter to the rules of war. Thousands of foot soldiers have to die to see which general won. I agree wars are stupid but I don't think they ever will go away. Now if you read up on what Obama said, he was always for the war in Afghanistan but not for the war in Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 10 - 09:26 PM I wouldn't have cared if was Obama was president back then and he knocked on my door and tried to sell me the war sittin' right there in my livin' room... My answer still would have been a resounding, "No!!!"... Not even "No, thanks..." Just, "No!!!"... Now if Obama had said to me that Saddam was a very bad man and asked if it was okay to off him then I mighta considered that but war??? Hell no!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Amos Date: 13 Oct 10 - 08:25 PM Christopher Hitchen's Biography "Hitch-22" has an interesting view on Iraq during the ramp-up to the invasion. From his perspective the war was floated on poor arguments, but the moral core grounds for invading were very sound, given the briuutality of It is conceivable that had it been presented by a less manipulative cadre, the US would have supported it more. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: andrew e Date: 13 Oct 10 - 05:46 PM I haven't read through all of this thread, but "Iraq" was never a mistake. It was all planned by the "powers", and they got just what they wanted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 13 Oct 10 - 08:02 AM Swaz... Don't play coy... You know darned well what the ol' gal wants... Fit starters??? Pee in the cup... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 13 Oct 10 - 02:02 AM Maybe Betty Ford has the documentation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Little Hawk Date: 12 Oct 10 - 10:58 AM I think what she is really dying for is a date with Chongo.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 12 Oct 10 - 10:51 AM What is her phone number Bobert? I will give her a call and see what she wants. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Teribus Date: 12 Oct 10 - 10:48 AM http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/11/basra-iraq-oil-city-transformed |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Bobert Date: 05 Oct 10 - 10:02 PM **********************Earth to Sawz*********************** **************Betty Ford is looking for you*************** ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Iraq Was a Mistake, Teribus... From: Sawzaw Date: 05 Oct 10 - 09:49 PM You said you had the documentation on whatever things were given to Saddam and proof that the US provided the bad gas. So it don't really of you try to backpedal by changing what you said. The fact is you brag about your accuracy and special knowledge of things and can't produce squat. The real matter here is you said you could do something that you can't do in a arrogant, belicose manner. Now what is your definition of someone like that? Someone who shoots his mouth off and can't do what he said? Here is how you described someone you believe to be that way: Bush came into the White House as a *blowhard* and he has never let up. |
