BS: It's official...... it was about oil

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:30 PM

"People generally were totally jacked off with "them" so they demonstrated with a protest vote - I will be interested to see what happens next election."


For "them" substitute "Blair" and we can agree about..."Blair has been forced from office by public disgust"

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:30 PM

The Italian Constitution and electoral system was deliberately made weak and divisive post world War two to ensure that the Communist Party of Italy was never able to get democratic control. Thus the number of governments post-war.

West Germany - the powerhouse of the European economy post-war has proportional representation. Pretty effective sort of economy I'd say. One of the current economies doing pretty well in Europe is Ireland. Proportional representation. Israel, strong country if nothing more - proportional representation.

The countries with "first-past-the-post" systems tend to have lower turn outs like the USA with its voter turn-out of around 50%.

But of course it is hardly democratic when a party with less votes than the opposition wins. I thought that was what you were arguing earlier.

I like to see the party with the most votes get seats in proportion to those votes (more or less) - what a shame you prefer them not to.

Incidentally, you still haven't told us what the electoral system is in the high tax, high standard of living country that you live in. Do tell old fruit, people might be interested. Denmark for example uses the party list system. Pretty effective government in Denmark.

I happen to think that the Iraq body count website is a more likely figure than the Hopkins figure. 49 killed yesterday. They will be delighted to know we have an accurate count of people killed.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:34 PM

As per usual, a thouroughly ill thought out T-Bird defense/analogy...

Upwards of 100,000 bombs and millions and millions of tank, artillery and small arms fire directed at population centers in a country the size of Iraq and you want us to belive the 35,000 and change figure...

Maybe you'd also like for us to believe that Saddam had all these WMD's, was trying to purchase enriched uranium in Niger, that if we didn't stop him then the mushroom clouds were next on Saddam's agenda...

No one can definately say how many folks have died but one thing is for sure is if on 35,000 have died then our military ain't worth a flip and our service people don't know jack about aiming their own WMD... I mean, I could round up a dozen 'er so hillbillies who could do one heck of a lot better with that kind of firepower against a rather defensless population...

And, fir the record... No, cat ain't got my tongue... Unlike you, I have a real job and don't live in front of a computer screen...

(But, Bobert, T-zer is one the Bush/Blair payroll... Ain't that a real jo???)

Sorry, T... Defending these knotheads is a one heck of a job... Hope the pay is good...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:42 PM

Bobert,

It really is NOT that difficult to actually check your figures...

"MCALESTER, Oklahoma - As U.S. bombs fall on Iraq, workers at America's pre-eminent bomb factory half a world away in the rolling hills of Oklahoma watch a TV set during their lunch break to see the results of their handiwork.

Run by the U.S. federal government, the McAlester Army Ammunition Plant (MCAAP) has been in operation since World War Two and has produced almost all of the estimated 13,000 bombs that have pounded Iraq."

You appear to be 770% high in your estimate... about normal for you.

Of course, claiming a "sortie" drops an average of 30 bombs every time might be the cause. Between photo recon and all those attacks with fighter/bombers that only carry 4-6 bombs, it takes a whole lot of area bombardment flights to bring the average up- and we didn't fly them.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: TIA
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 04:52 PM

Interestingly, the Lancet survey result is no longer a crazy statistical outlier. A September, 2007 Opinion Research Bureau study arrives at an even higher figure of over 1,000,000 post-invasion deaths.

http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78

This study, instead of being hotly debated, is being largely ignored.

I don't think anyone knows the "true" figure. I am sure that any reasonable person would agree that the total documented deaths is surely less than the true number.

I suspect that many have no interest in the true number, and for political reasons will only admit to documented deaths (and even then, round them down).

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 05:34 PM

BB,

The Pentagon has gone on record of saying that over 30,000 sorties were flown in Iraq...

Now a sortie is a bombing mision and given the multiple bombs that am airplane can carry it is rather obvious that the 11,000 finure is as bogus as Bush's original reasons on why the US had to invade Iraq...

Don't take the Wes Ginny Slide Rule to tell ya that someone at the bomb plant is usin' fuzzy math...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 05:48 PM

Bobert,

1. it was "all of the estimated 13,000 bombs that have pounded Iraq."
NOT 11,000.

2. You state:"Now a sortie is a bombing mision and given the multiple bombs that am airplane can carry"

A sortie is ANY flight by any plane or aircraft. A helicopter insertion of a medical team is a sortie.

" However, in military parlance, a "sortie" is an operational flight from a military aircraft. A Yahoo! Reference search on the term resulted in two definitions: an armed attack, especially one made from a plane surrounded by enemy forces, or a flight of a combat aircraft on a mission. "

Your arguements might be more effective if you stopped trying to make up the facts as you go along.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Oct 07 - 11:59 PM

teribus said, "The USA has no intention of controlling the Middle-East, but it doesn't want anybody else to control it either."

What kind of a statement is that? Does that mean they just want to keep the Middle East in constant turmoil and keep the Muslim world in their place?

I also see that teribus has admitted that the invasion of Iraq was about oil but not in the sense that the lefties think it was.

Can you please explain in more detail?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:11 AM

BB --

"The UN reports state that Saddam Hussein definitely still has programs..." That dog not only won't hunt--it's been buried for years.

For the n th time, UN reports only permit an UN-sponsored invasion. Bush's invasion was emphatically not blessed by the UN. Exactly what about that do you not understand?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:21 AM

From whatever source one uses or believes, the total number of "bombs" will be a bit misleading since the USA joins China, Pakistan, Russia and Israel in refusing to support a treaty banning cluster munitions (CBU's).

Go ahead and count bombs, then realize that…"each CBU-87 contains 202 BLU-97s or Combined Effects Bombs (CEBs) which have anti-personnel, anti-tank, and incendiary capabilities or kill mechanisms"…

More here…

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:35 AM

BB,

Don't confuse Bobert, for all his arguements he relies on the "BOBERT FACT" which requires no form of substantiation.

Bobert also wants to look at the combat statistics:

"Desert Storm" was by far the more destructive with around 130,000 killed that included all Iraqi military fatalities.

The Invasion of March 2003 and operations to May resulted in about one tenth the civilian fatalities of "Desert Storm". Very few infrastructure targets were hit in 2003 compared to "Desert Storm" and there was a very good reason for that.

I am interested to see that dianavan appears to believe that the middle-east region has to be controlled by some other country, because if not it can only result in turmoil. By the bye, dianavan the middle-east is not "the Muslim world", not by a long shot. The answers to your questions dianavan are contained and explained in my first post to this thread, all you've got to do is read it, I did after all write it at your specific request.

Ake, the protest vote in Scotland was directed against Jack McConell and the Scottish Labour party, nothing to do with Tony Blair.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:11 AM

Perfectly valid assessment at the time Ron. In fact it was the only valid assessment at the time and was widely believed by the member states of the United Nations and their Intelligence Services.

It is extremely inconvenient that counter to what the anti-war, anti-Bush chorus chirp, the information regarding what WMD Iraq may have held all came from the UN, whose inspectors were the last people in Iraq verifying what the situation actually was, it was not "made up" by either George W Bush, or by Tony Blair.

Identification that Iraq represented a threat to US interests was not something engineered by George W Bush, or by any member of his Administration. That conclusion had been reached three years before GWB came to the White House and had been clearly expressed by Bill Clinton on 17th February 1998.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 05:26 AM

It was all about the WMD's he possessed and thus a threat to the region. He was always a threat to the region and when he was fighting against Iran the USA was happy to support him. When he was using WMD's in the form of chemical weapons against Iran why was there invasion then?

Another country in the area has almost certainly stockpiled a huge arsenal of weapons including nuclear weapons, and hasn't signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, therefore doesn't even get inspected.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 08:01 AM

That should read "why was there no invasion then" - meaning at that time

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 10:49 AM

So, BB, what were the other 17,000 or so flights about??? Come on, pal, your logic just ain't up to snuff here... And whatever your source is on the 13,000 can't possibly be anythingbut propaganda 'cause something just don't add up... The Penhtagon says over 30,000 so that leave one heck of alot of flights unaccounted for??? This ain't rocket swergery here... What were the other 17,000 plus flights about??? Sight seeing???

Yo, T-zer,

Speaking of ***fuzzy math***, how can you say that Desert Storm, with 130,000 folks killed was more destructive??? That is an absolutely rediculuos claim given there is more a very strong likelyhood that over a half a million folks have died in Iraq... Oh sure, you can play game with semantics and you can question the meathodology of the Johns Hopkins study but you can't expect people to believe your propagandized Bush War Machine number of 35 or so thousand... Yeah, I know that Hitler said that folks would believe the BIG LIE but folks have gotten a tad smarter about accepting the Bush/Blair/BB/Teribus propaganda crapola... Folks here, with the exception of you and BB, just don't believe your sources... They are not even remotely credible...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: pdq
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 10:50 AM

Folkiedave,

If you are saying that Iran did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, you are wrong. They did.

Iran was also the target of a recent UN resolution condemning their nuclear program. See UN Security Council Resolution 1737. Thei nuclear program cannot be about power generation since the country is floating on oil.

During the Iran-Iraq War, both sides used chemical (and probably biological) weapons one each other. We (the US) condemned both sides. Also, we did not really support Iraq, but we did give them surveillance photos and other assistance after Iran had crossed over into Iraqi territory, thereby becomming the aggressor.

During the Ian-Iraq War, less than 1% of the Iraqi weapons were US-made and almost all came to Saddam through third parties, including Argentina and Israel, and were largely un-authorized, being the work of for-profit arms dealers. Also, some of the arms were sold by states wishing to generate money by selling what was supplied to them for self-defense.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 12:56 PM

"over a half million folks would still be alive," - Bobert

"given there is more a very strong likelyhood that over a half a million folks have died in Iraq." - Bobert

Well Bobert you appear to be moving in the right direction.

Oh by the bye, Bobert:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4817582.stm

How many got killed in that "sortie" Bobert.

Hey, Folkiedave, those rascally Kurds have signed another four oil deals, which the Iraqi oil minister is calling illegal, but which I am pretty sure they aren't on account of there being no law in place for them to break, but Folkiedave, can you explain to us why the Kurds should be thanked for doing so, and ultimately will be thanked for doing so. French and Canadian companies are involved I believe and one of the contracts involves a refinery.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:25 PM

First of all Teribus - congratulations on learning to do the blue clicky. I expect to see more of your information suitably referenced in future. It would have been easy to reference your story about the new oil deals like this for example.

As for the illegality of the Kurds actions since you believe it is OK for them to "go it alone" why do you think none of the other regions of Iraq have gone down this road, (or would you support them if they did?) and why do you think the USA also finds such contracts unhelpful?

Looks like a bit of a breakaway state to me Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Folkiedave
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:33 PM

If you are saying that Iran did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, you are wrong. They did.

Iran was also the target of a recent UN resolution condemning their nuclear program. See UN Security Council Resolution 1737. Thei nuclear program cannot be about power generation since the country is floating on oil.

I haven't said anywhere that Iran has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Just the opposite in fact since I pointed out that countries who do not sign do not have weapons inspectors.

Try again with another country with a large nuclear weapons stockpile that hasn't signed.

As for the USA being neutral and condemning both sides - really?

Go do some reading. Read this for example.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 01:43 PM

""The UN reports state that Saddam Hussein definitely still has programs..." That dog not only won't hunt--it's been buried for years.
"

Please try READING the reports. I have quoted them in the past- just look back. BUT READ WHAT THEY SAY!

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 02:37 PM

OK Folkiedave why should they be applauded for doing this?

And Hell's Teeth Folkiedave, we're not back at that Donald Rumsfeld, Ultra-Mega-important US Government Oficial, Special Envoy with the Authority to speak and act on behalf of, and for, the President, Congress and people of the United States of America are we???

No need for the blue clicky on this occasion, Folkiedave has already provided it. Pssst Folkiedave have a read of Document 31 - The meeting notes. Then come back and tell us what they said, tell us how many and what weapons Rumsfeld "sold" to Iraq. Note this is not some "blogg", this is not some MSM outlet trying to sell copy or boost ratings. This document records the meeting between Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld and was addressed to the US Secretary of State and classified as "Secret" and "Immediate". Its purpose is to serve as a briefing document, no hype, no spin just a straightforward record of the conversation. You will see that the US is attempting to reduce if not halt the flow of weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 03:00 PM

"I pointed out that countries who do not sign do not have weapons inspectors. "

True- AND they do not get the assistance to their civlian nuclear programs that signatorties get.

The non- signing countries are

India
Israel
Pakistan

North Korea sign, violated, and withdrew. After getting the assistance, of course...

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 03:16 PM

Bobert:

Learn to read.

http://keld.newsvine.com/_news/2007/07/15/838263-air-force-quietly-builds-iraq-presence-drops-5-times-more-bombs


"Air force chief Air Marshal Angus Houston said Australia's 14 F/A-18 Hornet fighter-bombers dropped a total of 126 laser guided bombs - 115 of the 500 pound GBU-12 bombs and 11 of the much larger 2,000 pound GBU-10 bombs."
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/04/1054700269932.html

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 05:24 PM

Air War, Iraq: 2006

While cluster bombs remain a point of contention, Air Force officials do acknowledge that U.S. military and coalition aircraft dropped at least 111,000 pounds of other types of bombs on targets in Iraq in 2006. This figure -- 177 bombs in all -- does not include guided missiles or unguided rockets fired, or cannon rounds expended; nor, according to a CENTAF spokesman, does it take into account the munitions used by some Marine Corps and other coalition fixed-wing aircraft or any Army or Marine Corps helicopter gunships; nor does it include munitions used by the armed helicopters of the many private security contractors flying their own missions in Iraq.

In statistics provided to me, CENTAF reported a total of 10,519 "close air support missions" in Iraq in 2006, during which its aircraft dropped those 177 bombs and fired 52 "Hellfire/Maverick missiles." The Guided Bomb Unit-12, a laser-guided bomb with a 500-pound general purpose warhead -- 95 of which were reportedly dropped in 2006 -- was the most frequently used bomb in Iraq last year, according to CENTAF. In addition, 67 satellite-guided, 500-pound GBU-38s and 15 2,000-pound GBU-31/32 munitions were also dropped on Iraqi targets in 2006, according to official U.S. figures. There is no independent way, however, to confirm the accuracy of this official count.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=TUR20070526&articleId=5781

reported a total of 10,519 "close air support missions" in Iraq in 2006, during which its aircraft dropped those 177 bombs and fired 52 "Hellfire/Maverick missiles."

Let me see...For 2006, 177 + 52 = 229 over 10,519 sorties..... 0.0218 bombs or missiles per sortie.



Call it 35,000 ( I'll give you 5,000 FREE) total sorties- then that would be 653 bombs and missiles. Given that during the war there WAS large scale bombing of bunkers and installations by B-1 , B-2 and B-52 bombers, I suspect 17,000 total bombs is about right. Care to give me any reason to think THAT number is propaganda, when YOU have NO basis in facts for your number at all?

Remember,
"Statistics tell the story: Air Force and Navy aircraft dropped 437 bombs and missiles in Iraq in the first six months of 2007, a fivefold increase over the 86 used in the first half of 2006, and three times more than in the second half of 2006, according to Air Force data."

WOW- I just noticed that in 2006 and the first 6 months of 2007 they dropped a TOTAL of 666 bombs and missiles on Iraq!


That only leaves 12,334 or so for 2002 through 2005 ( twice as long a time): That INCLUDES the entire attack. Care to show me any figures that might indicate we dropped more than that?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 05:36 PM

Bobert: "It has been reported that over 3000 sorties were flown in the pre-mission-accomplished days... Now each sortie is an individual flight with a mutitude of bombs dropped from each one... Now if you average that an F-16 alone can drop a half a dozen bombs and bombers hundreds of bombs it is not out of reason that upwards of of 100,000 or so bombs were dropped on Iraq..."

Mother Jones: "Total air sorties, 41,000; Strike Sorties, 15,500; Bombs Dropped, 27,000. And that only covers the pre-"Mission Accomplished" phase of the war."

So MJ ( if YOU accept thier figures- they DO have a slight interest in producing a biased viewpoint) said 27000 / 41000 bombs per sortie DURING THE ATTACK
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2005/03/iraq_year_three.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2950837.stm

Of course, it could ALL just be proganda.
0.659 bombs per sortie INCLUDING the B-52s DURING the attack...


I think the 17,000 +/- bombs is a little more accurate than your WAG.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 05:47 PM

more:

:Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully selected targets" before the war officially started. :


http://www.theanalysis.net/news/article.asp?id=1324


Let me see... more than 600 bombs- (call it 650) and 21,736 sorties...

0.0299 bombs per sortie.

So back off your *lies*, Bobert. Or come up with SOME kind of facts to back them up.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 06:52 PM

You are a hoot, BB... I mean, like fallin' down holding yer sides, laughin' type hoot...

Yer posts remind me of the 2000 Florida recount with the number of bombs creeping steadily upwards... Heck, If I stayed away a couple days you'd probably be up to 70 or 80 thousand... Just today you have managed to get the numbers up several thousand while I was busy working...

Okay, lets just say that it was *17,000 bombs, millions of tank, artillery and small arms fire* (not to nention those nasty little cluster bombs which we will onlu count as ones-ies) with all this stuff aimed at population centers ina country the size of Texas by the best trained army in the world.... You with me so far, BB... This ain't about academics and propaganda...This is about pure and simple ***horse sense***... So we have all this stuff aimed mostly at population centers and you and your bud, Teribus, expect the thinking world to believe that only 35,000 to 38,000 Iraqis died as a result???

This is the argtument here... It's not about whether 17,000 or 100,000 bombs (depending on definitaion of "is" is in "What "is" a bomb???)... It's about the pure simple logic that if only 35 to 38,000 died then every Amercian serviceman was aimin' to ***miss***...

Is it your contention that the US military conspired to make Bush look bad by purposely ***missing*** their targets???

Hmmmmmm????

You know perfectly well what this is about... It's about the deaths of civilians.... Women... Old peoppe like maybe yer parents.... Kids... Thios is what it is about... It isn't some stupif acedemic exercise.... It's about the massive human loss of life that if your side lets down it's gurad for one minute and the world really gets beyond the lies and propaganda will ***insist*** that George W. Bush an' his buds be tried for War Crimes...

You can play all the academic games you want but this is the real story... Historians wikll bget this one right just as I got my prerdictions of what was gfoing to happen in Iraq right... You were wrong then... Teribus was wrong then.... And you both are still wrong in playing games and not facing the reality of what your folks have done to the world...

No, this ain't about the Saddams... It's about the George Bushs and the Beardedbruces...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 08:00 PM

Sorry, T-zer, if you are feelin' kind left out here butt yer bud, BB, has outworked ya' today but...

...nevermind all that 'cause I know that you are tryin' the best you can and I don't want that to go unappreciated... OKay???

I was able to to get my pea-shooter dial up to download yer little article about the jet scarin' away the all the bad guys... I was thinkin' that was purdy cool... Of course, the story doesn't have any relationship to Iraq but I enjoyed it non the less 'casue I like airplane stories where folks don't "actually die" (yer term???) but get the crap scared outta 'um so...

... I reckon it was 'bout 35 'er 40 years ago and my brother had gotten his pilot's license and so we were flying over Loudoun County, Va. (which today is as close to a no-fly zone as you can find) an', okay I had flown a lot of Cubs as a kid (no license) with other pilots but never a Cesna with a *yoke*... So we were at 'round 5000 feet and my brother stalls the sumabich... I mean, this thing is like dead... Bells ringin', wings shakin' dead... Then he pushes in the yoke and we are droppin' like a friggin' stone and prolly fall some 4000 feet before he pulls up and lets the air running thru the prop restart the engine... Man, he had me scared outta my head... I thought we was gonna die but I tried to act as if I was all calm during his little ***prank*** (haha) and was watchin' what he was doing...

Bout 15 years ago we were flying in a Cezna 210 (turbo) down to North Carolina and my brother said he needed a quit nap and gave me a heading and told me to just hang on that heading... Now the Cezna 210 usually flies at 'bout 10,000 so the trubo will work but the ceiling was like 5000 feet so we were just below the clouds and here I was with virtually the same danged plane with my brother nodded off in the left seat... Well, what a guy to do??? So I pulled up on the yoke ever so slightly and then the stall bells went off... My brother slept rith thru 'um... So I pushed the yoke in and let the sumabich fall... Soon as I did that my brother woke up and he was quite aggitated.... Oh, life can be so good... "Yer plane, bro" I said as he scambled tofirst figure out that he was awake and second that I'd put us into the same fall that he had put us thru some 20 years earlier... But he pulled it out just the same way... Heck, I coulda pulled us out, too but I just made him sweat...

We haven't talked about that incdent since it happened... I remember him being real pissed at the time but havin' a few laughs over it later that night in some bar...

Well, this ain't got one thing to do with this thread except the link that you, T-Bird, provided brought back that memory and I just thought it was prolly the only time that I'd gettin' 'round to tellin' it so...

Thanks, T-zer, fir the link...

Now back to the slog...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 08:25 PM

Sorry Bobert but you just do not like facts, I mean really facts, not "BOBERT FACTS" that are just things that are made up at the spur of the moment to suit whatever arguement is the flavour of the day.

Now Bobert I gave you an example of a - roll of drums - a "sortie" (Bobert definition for the unitiated - a sortie is something that is flown by a US aircraft that ALWAYS results in CIVILIAN deaths) - now come on Bobert tell us how many civilians were killed as the result of that "sortie". By the bye, for those who do not wish to wait around for Bobert to struggle with his various prejudices, his bigotry and his bias, the answer is NONE.

So shock, horror and amazement a "sortie" has been flown in which NOBODY has died. That truth having been clearly established Bobert how many of the others were the same. Think carefully before answering Bobert - the only person you will be lying to is yourself. Oddly enough I don't think that that will matter a damn to likes of Bobert, his head is stuck so far up his own arse the only sensible conversation he can have is with his own echo.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 09:29 PM

That's 3 "bye the byes" for you in one day, T, so I hate to tell ay that you have struck out...

Awww, jus' funnin'...

Well, in the case you have have linked, which BTW wasn't in a, ahhhhh, friggin war zone where every plane is armed to the teeth, no one died...

No one died when I stalled the 210 and sent it into a free fall either...

Difference is that that there is a *difference3*... Yeah, I'll be the first to admit that there were flights in Iraq where folks were jus' jus' joy-riding, 'er doing recon but those flights, given that this was a war zone weren't the average day at the office...

I think, if you were to really ***think*** (I know that you ain't being paid to, ahhh, think...) about it you'd admit that the bulk of the sorties flown over Iraq weren't sight seeing or recon but maybe they were... I doubt it...

BB is up to at least 17,000 of the 30,000 not being sight seein' or pleasure flights so I think that it is not unreasonable for any thinking person to perhaps, jus' perhaps, thinki that maybe a lot of these flights were flights where there were targets and bombs...

(But, Bobert, how could this be in a war zone???)

Call it a "lucky guess"...

So back to the original premise... Bewenn what I have suggested and ehat BB has suggested there were a lot of bombs dropped on Iraq...

Do you know how large Iraq is, T???

Do you know how little of Iraq would be considered "military targets", T???

Now if you were to take away that portion of Iraq where I believe we can have a general consensus that there are no tragets of military value and reduced it to land size I believe that rather than bombing an area the size of Texas we are really talking about bombing an area the size of Rhode Island...

Are you with me this far, T???

So here we have between 17,000 bombs (BB's figure) and upeards of 100,000 bombs fallin' on an area no larger than Rhode Island... Throw in millions and millions of rounds otr tank, artillery and small arms and your 35,000-38,000 figure of Iraqi deaths is beyond comprehension to anyone with any level of "military science" training...

In other words, your numbers are so deep in the area of "fuzzy math" that it would take both Oral Roberts and Jesus Christ to budge 'um a millimeter... That, my friend, is the reality of your arguments... Yeah, you'd love to pin me down... Problem is that you dn't have a credible alternative story... All you have is worn out mythology and propaganda that any college debate team would drop into a shreader as if it was air... No, amke that hot air...

Thin about what you are suggesting, T... It is unbeleiveable... 35,000??? Come on man, quit making a fool out of yourself... We both know you are as wrong as wrong can be...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 09:31 PM

Bobert I am so disappointed to learn that you don't like facts, that you are not o in an affectionate relationship with facts and that you may not even sleep with facts.

What are you, some kind of fact hater?

It must be true. Teribus said it.

You and facts should get to know each other better.
Let me introduce you.
You, this is fact, fact this is you. You fact, Fact you. :)





Teribus your America is a free market America.
There is much in it to be proud of I am sure.
As you said you can;t make an omlette without breaking an egg.
But were not talking eggs anymore.

It's endless foreign wars, mass killing and destruction, detentions and torture, contempt for international law, and total disregard for human rights and social justice everywhere. At home, it's just as bad short of open warfare:

-- democracy is a fantasy in a corporatist state placing profits over people;

-- the prison-industrial complex is a growth industry;


-- social decay is increasing as well as real human need;

-- social justice, civil liberties and human rights are non-starters;

-- an unprecedented wealth disparity exists in a rigid class society with growing poverty in the richest country in the world that's also the least caring;

-- government is the most secret, intrusive and repressive in our history;

-- the rule of law is null and void;

-- a cesspool of uncontrolled corruption prevails with no accountability;

-- a de facto one party state exists with no checks and balances or separation of powers and a president claiming "unitary executive" powers to do as he pleases and does with impunity;

-- suppression of all dissenting ideas and thoughts;

-- an out-of-control military-industrial complex bent on world dominance; and

-- a mainstream media serving as national thought control police gatekeepers glorifying wars, defiling democracy and supporting imperial conquest and repression.

But it is yours and you love it.

Many of us are only saying that it can be more than just a plunder machine. It could be Everything that everyone could be proud of.
Utopia? no But a market that allows for more than only one tenth of one percent of the population to have access to actual freedom and independence.

That is a system that would be the love all all people of all nations.
Our enemies would be nothing but tiny puppet dictators.

There is nothing wrong with being universaly loved instead of scorned as we are today. You just have to know whats going on first.
You already have the will and passion to do something about it.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 10:40 PM

Bobert,

"Okay, lets just say that it was *17,000 bombs, millions of tank, artillery and small arms fire* (not to nention those nasty little cluster bombs which we will onlu count as ones-ies) with all this stuff aimed at population centers ina country the size of Texas by the best trained army in the world.... You with me so far, BB... This ain't about academics and propaganda...This is about pure and simple ***horse sense***... So we have all this stuff aimed mostly at population centers and you and your bud, Teribus, expect the thinking world to believe that only 35,000 to 38,000 Iraqis died as a result???"

You seem to miss the point. IF you really thought that was true, WHY DO YOU KEEP EXAGERATING the figure? I would think the truth would serve- BUT you insist on inflating the numbers, without even the attempt to back them up.

As for the NUMBER of bombs, I stand by the 17,000 or so that were actually produced and used. The other numbers were from Left wing sources that I do not trust, and I used them just to show that your 100,000 bombs figure was based on total nonsense.

And WHO claims that "all this stuff aimed at population centers "? You, or some reputable source? It seems to me that MOST of the bombs were during the initial attack, and most of them were aimed at military sites. Are you claiming that Saddam violated the Geneva Conventions by placing military instalations in population centers?

In addition to all his violations of UN resolutions?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Oct 07 - 11:01 PM

"It's about the deaths of civilians.... Women... Old peoppe like maybe yer parents.... Kids... Thios is what it is about... It isn't some stupif acedemic exercise.... It's about the massive human loss of life "


I agree. Aned I hold all those who protested the actions of the US, and objected to the UN taking action WHILE SAYING NOTHING to Saddam about his responsibilities.

THOSE people are the ones who encouraged the war, by making Saddam think that he could get away with it. France, Germany, and Russia are more responsible for the invasion of Iraq than the Bush administration is- Had Saddam even suspected that he would be held responsible, he would have taken one of the many chances to flee to another country, with a chunk of wealth, and there would have been no invasion.

But he had every reason to think that he could get away with staying in power without commplying with the UNR: After all, the French ( who were getting the oil ( REMEMBER BLOOD FOR OIL???) told him that there would be no action against him. And the Germans, ( who were selling him the prohibited items that the UN inspectors DID find) said that there would be no action. And all the demonstrators said there should be no action against him. And the US gave him three months (after the UN report declared that he had NOT complied with the UNR) to get all the evidence, so he thought that he was going to get away with it. So, why would he give up?

So yes, it is about senseless deaths- caused by those who, by their actions ONLY against the US told Saddam that it was ok for him to continue in power, and that he would not be held responsible for complying with the UNR, or even the cease-fire that he signed in 1992....

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 07:00 AM

"Had Saddam even suspected that he would be held responsible, he would have taken one of the many chances to flee to another country, with a chunk of wealth, and there would have been no invasion."

                If Saddam had left the country, things in Iraq probably would have come unglued anyway, though 150,000 American service people wouldn't have been trapped in the middle of it.

                Maybe that's what motivated the Bush administration to act when they did. They didn't want to see a civil war in Iraq take place that they couldn't participate in.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:33 AM

So pleased that you do not regard the South of Iraq as a war zone Bobert.

So tell me if I am understanding your logic. You are trying to tell us that the battlefield dispositions of the Iraqi Army have to be grouped together to form a concentrated target area, which coincidently has to be a centre of dense population, then we have to imagine the number of casualties that must have occurred as a result of this concentration being hit by "upeards of 100,000 bombs fallin' on an area no larger than Rhode Island... Throw in millions and millions of rounds otr tank, artillery and small arms". Where you get these numbers is probably the same place you get most of your information - plucked out of thin air.

But it didn't happen like that did it Bobert?

The Iraqi Army suffered from poor morale, even amongst the elite Republican Guard. Entire units disbanded into the crowds upon the approach of invading troops, or actually sought out U.S. and U.K. forces out to surrender. Other Iraqi Army officers were bribed by the CIA or coerced into surrendering.

The Iraqi Army also suffered from incompetent leadership - reports state that Qusay Hussein, charged with the defense of Baghdad, dramatically shifted the positions of the two main divisions protecting Baghdad several times in the days before the arrival of U.S. forces, and as a result the units within were both confused and further demoralized when U.S. Marine and British forces attacked, there was no resistance, there was no "Urban Battle in Baghdad".

By no means did the invasion force see the entire Iraqi military thrown against it; U.S. and U.K. units had orders to move to and seize objective target-points rather than seek engagements with Iraqi units. This resulted in most regular Iraqi military units emerging from the war fully intact and without ever having been engaged by U.S. forces, especially in southern Iraq.

I gravely doubt your estimates with regard to munitions expended the whole thing was over in 21 days bar the shouting and very litle fighting took place in built up areas. Given the combat reports it would tend to suggest that most "sorties" returned to base with full loads. But at least you have come round to the actual fact and admitted that not all sorties involved loss of life.

So 3 major advances today Bobert:

1. The Hopkins figure only estimates numbers who may have died, not numbers who have died.

2. That the Southern Governates of Iraq are peaceful and are not a war zone.

3. That not all sorties flown by Coalition aircraft result in the death of Iraqi civilians.

Weel done Bobert, very encouraging.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:49 AM

BB--

"Try reading the reports." Uh, sorry, for the n + 1 th time, it makes no difference what the reports say. Point is, and it pains me to have to say I've to I've told you more than once already that if enforcement of UN resolutions is to be done, it needs UN approval.

Now did Bush have UN approval for his invasion? Yes or no? No agonized explanation necessary.

Would you perhaps understand better if I used your own approach?--it makes NO DIFFERENCE what's in the reports. Do you only understand SHOUTING?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:50 AM

"to say I've told you"

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 09:31 AM

There was Teribus' timeless objection to the Lancet study again:

"The Hopkins figure only estimates numbers who may have died, not numbers who have died"

Teribus will refuse to believe that Pol Pot killed 3 million in the killing fields unless you show him 3 million stamped and signed death certificates. Remember, that 3 million figure you so often hear only represents the number that may have died, not the numbers who have died.

And Sudan? Nothing bad happening there. Remember, the reported numbers of dead and displaced only represent those who may have been killed or displaced, not the number who have been killed or displaced.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 01:51 PM

"refuse to believe that Pol Pot killed 3 million in the killing fields unless "


I think it was 2 million or so...

" During his time in power Pol Pot imposed an extreme version of agrarian communism where city dwellers were relocated to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects. The combined effect of slave labour, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions is estimated to have killed around 2 million Cambodians[citation needed] (approximately a quarter of the population).[citation needed] His regime achieved special notoriety for singling out all intellectuals and other "bourgeois enemies" for murder"

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 04:34 PM

Oh, so are we back to the "Saddam was a bad man" rationale for the war, BB???

Is that your final answer, or would you like to continue moving the goal posts around to suit yuor latest arguement??? That really is what you do here... If you feel the heat in one place you just try to move the discussion away from where you are uncomfy...

Are you saying that removing Saddam justified the invasion and subsequent occupation???

Yeah, sure, Saddam was bad man... So what??? The US is bed with lots of bad men... This is the real world...

I agree with Donuel intirely that the US has allowed bad men to operate becasue the US hasn't been a very good role model... Bush, I think is the worst we have had to endure since, ahhhhh, Nixon but in terms of creating worldwide scorn I believe Bush has 1st place locked up going back, ahhhhhh, maybe forever...

As for you, BB, not trusting "left" sources I can certainly relate, except in my case its your sources, which come right from the company song book... The folks who wrote that book are the same folks who used lies to take our nation into Iraqmire in the first place...

If there is a well earned credibilty problem out there, it ain't our side who has created it... It's your side... People, in general, just aren't buyin' your stories anymore... Yeah, T-Bird will buy 'um and you'll buy his but there are few takers these days for your stories and continued mytholgy...

Just because you SCREAM somehting, doesn't make it a FACT... The historians will get thru your sides smokescreens... The have allready done a purdy good job on exposing the initial and most serious the lies that we told during Bush's mad-dash-to-Iraq and I am certain that the current batch of lies coming from the Bush administration will also be debunked... Including the number of dead... These things just can't be covered up but so long...

But, hark, BB... You being such the loyal little Bush foot souldier won't evr have to be contronted by the ***truth*** because there is a small but very dedicated group of folks like you who will go to the grave patting one another on the back and blaming, much like Pol Pot, the liberals/intellectuals for everything that goes wrong...

Normal...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 05:25 PM

BB--

Still waiting for an answer. Did Bush have UN blessing for his invasion of Iraq--yes or no?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 06:06 PM

Thanks for the correction BB, but remember, those are only people who may have died as opposed to people who have died.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 06:15 PM

Not to fret, TIA...

Bush and BB's little cover-up will be found out... Right now all we are getting is what they say is the story... The historians are close on the heels of those who thought they had a perfect storm to keep the truth from seeing the light of day...

Ain't worked out that way...

Just as I, as well as others, predicted what would happen in Iraq, I feel very comfortable that the truth will find it's way thru the barriers that the Bush adminiistration has set up to keep it hidden...

Jesus told Mathew that "there is nothing hidden that one day will not be found and no secrets kept that will not one day be common knowledge"...

On that front, time is on our side...

Will it bring back the lives of the half million, or so, Iraqis??? No, it won't... But at least the truth will come out and maybe, just maybe, all of America will finally get it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 06:58 PM

Bobert,

I have shown that your estimates of bombs per sortie are way off.

By any figures that are available, the number seems to be

0.0199 bombs per sortie BEFORE the US attack
0.659 bombs per sortie DURING the bombing campaign
0.0218 for 2006 and the first 6 months of 2007.

I use sources that I do not believe would hesitate to exagerate as much as you, if they could- so why do you call thee figures "lies"?

A "lie" is when someone, after being informed of the truth, and given the facts, insists that the false statements they made earlier MUST be true, and repeats them. THAT is what you are doing.


I have asked numerous times for any factual basis for the "half a million civilian deaths" that you keep repeating, and have not seen fact one. YES, too many have been killed- MOST by those that YOU would leave in defacto control of the country. When they have killed all those that disagree with them, I guess you will say you are sorry, but we have no business trying to save anyone's lives- It's not like they are godd ol' red blooded Americans, so let them kill eachg other, you seem to be saying- correct me if I am wrong.


Just because YOU repeat a lie over and over does not make it true. If you have facts to present, I will be glad to listen to them: You seem unwiling to even bother to look for facts, but make them up as you go along. This devalues your arguements EVEN when they have some substance, and should be paid attention to. Yet when you insist of repeating lies, why should we bother to try to find the truth that you might have to say?

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 07:05 PM

"0.0199 bombs per sortie BEFORE the US attack"

Sorry, typo. That should be " 0.0299 bombs per sortie BEFORE the US attack"

According to
http://www.theanalysis.net/news/article.asp?id=1324

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 07:09 PM

Ron D.

"Did Bush have UN blessing for his invasion of Iraq--yes or no?"

Subject to debate. IMO, Yes. But there are points ON BOTH SIDES.


It is the failure of BOTH sides to even try to understand that those who disagree with them have what they consider to be good reasons to do so. To ignore those reasons is to make certain that those people will NEVER agree with what you have decided is right.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 07:58 PM

BB,

No, you haven't shown me anything... What you have done is report what has been carefully selected for your consumption.... The truth is being kept from you yet you are so blind as to keep falling for Bush's pea-under-the-shell game and you actually believe the crap that comes outta the propaganda pipeline... Your sources are not independent... They are just pages out of Bush's comapny fight song book... You can't see this becasue you are apparently blinded to the truth...

We tried to tell you that you were buying bad goods during the mad-dash-to-Iraq but you were then, as you are now, not able to see that it is folks like you who are the most manipilated by the Bush PR/propaganda team... You still don't get it...

The real truth about what the US has done in Iraq probably won't be known until it is over... Then, as in Vietnam the real story will be told...

But I will bet you a dollar to doughnuts that when we get the "rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say, what you have stated about the extent of the bombing in Iraq will be shown to be as wrong as wrong can be...

Right now, there is very concerted effort to paint Iraq as some kinda success... This is a concereted effort... The actual story isn't being told... What is being told is complete fiction... Can I prove that tonight??? No, but history will prove it just as hiostory has proved that I had some level of underastanding of what was going to happen in Iraq during the mad-dash...

No brag, just fact...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 08:54 PM

BB--

Oh, it's subject to debate that Bush had UN blessing to invade Iraq, is it? Perhaps you'd be good enough to give one scintilla of evidence. NB--that is not quoting UN resolutions--we need a statement authorizing Bush to use force to enforce said resolutions.

Good luck.

I'll be watching.

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Oct 07 - 10:07 PM

"the propaganda pipeline"
http://www.theanalysis.net/news/article.asp?id=1324
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2005/03/iraq_year_three.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2950837.stm


OK, They are propaganda, I guess....


Since they are anti-war.


As for your sources...

Oh, you have yet to present ANY of them- I guess that means we sghould trust your god-like knowledge to only make up "true" figures...


RD,
"that is not quoting UN resolutions"

If you do not accept UNR as indicating the will of the UN, YOU have a real problem- And since you don't read the UNR, I fail to see how you can make ANY statement as to the intent of the UN.

Sort of like you saying you want the Bush administration take on things without ever having to read anything by any spokesman for them.

But then I guess it IS easier to "win" your point when you don't allow the other team to play....

Subject: RE: BS: It's official...... it was about oil
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Oct 07 - 12:43 AM

BB--


It's very simple--I would think a rocket scientist such as yourself should be able to understand.

Either the UN gave Bush its blessing to enforce its resolutions on Iraq or it did not. To the vast majority of the educated world it is obvious that the UN did not give Bush its blessing. If you feel differently, it would seem you might possibly be able to come up with some evidence   that the UN did authorize Bush to invade.

I'm waiting patiently for your evidence--(why do I get the impression it may be a long wait?)