Iraqi women say freedoms are slipping away

[Joshmo]

Is this going to end up being the fruit of this war?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050924/lf_afp/iraqwomen_050924210845

[Lynn7]

I don't beleive this has anything to do with this war. It has to do with getting out from under an evil dictator and now other people are fighting to gain domination. If they (the women) do not stand firm and continue dressing how they want they will lose it all. Didn't our Black people stand up to violence inthe name of freedom and didn't our women fight against discrimination? Freedom is not free- you have to fight for it.and sometimes you have to die for it. New Hampshire's motto is Live Free or Die. It's a good one.

[MacReady]

Originally posted by Lynn7
I don't beleive this has anything to do with this war. It has to do with getting out from under an evil dictator and now other people are fighting to gain domination. If they (the women) do not stand firm and continue dressing how they want they will lose it all. Didn't our Black people stand up to violence inthe name of freedom and didn't our women fight against discrimination? Freedom is not free- you have to fight for it.and sometimes you have to die for it. New Hampshire's motto is Live Free or Die. It's a good one.

It isn't the evil dictator that's stopping them: it's the whole rotten religion that's obeyed vehemently in Iraq and that oppresses women's right. Saddam was secular while these new guys will kill those they see as a road block for their Islamic republic.

[outsyder]

Originally posted by MacReady
It isn't the evil dictator that's stopping them: it's the whole rotten religion that's obeyed vehemently in Iraq and that oppresses women's right. Saddam was secular while these new guys will kill those they see as a road block for their Islamic republic.


The Middle East kind of fucking sucks, doesn't it?

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Didn't our Black people stand up to violence inthe name of freedom and didn't our women fight against discrimination?


Yeah, but I feel their actions did more to further their cause than the Civil War, or the um... well, there was no war for women's rights....

I know you and others will always disagree with me on the true fruits of the Civil War, but I stand firm behind my belief that the slave revolts and Underground Railroad had to do more with their freedom than everything accomplished through the civil war.

It is of my opinion that we could have liberated just as mnay people in Iraq by dropping culture instead of bombs. It seemed to work just fine in the events leading to the breakdown of the USSR. It was evident in the first days of the war -- the Iraqi people didn't run to get guns to help our fight -- They ran and got TV's and radios. The only people, in large, who ran to get weapons to partake in the war were the opposition.

It's all about infiltration with terrorism. All we taught the opposition was, "Don't fuck with us because we are bigger and will squash you." Hardly a good example, because all they are determined to do now is get better weapons, and get revenge. Maybe we will prevent that - or maybe 20 years down the road, while we are patting ourselves on the back, another extremist group will emerge and the whole circle of destruction will continue.

Of course Christan's prescribe to an "eye for an eye" which is contrary to Karma, so I'm talking to the wrong church and not preaching to the choir here.

[Joshmo]

Actually, Christians do NOT subscribe to an eye for an eye. We subscribe to turn the other cheek and forgiveness. What you are infering is a blanket statement to an entire group of people when like anything else, there are wackos in groups who taint things.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Joshmo
Actually, Christians do NOT subscribe to an eye for an eye. We subscribe to turn the other cheek and forgiveness. What you are infering is a blanket statement to an entire group of people when like anything else, there are wackos in groups who taint things.


I concede that statement. As you may find reading some of my postings from last night, I wasn't quite up to par.

I've mostly considered myself a Christian, and the basic pricipal for me has always been "Do Unto Others..."

You are totally right, I was making an example of extrimists, and that wasn't fair to you, myself, or anyone else who follows teachings of kindness.

Plus, when I wrote that - this really weird new court room show called "Eye for an Eye" was on in the background. Heh.

(Bubba rubs head and pops a Tylenol)

[EVILxxx]

Originally posted by MacReady
It isn't the evil dictator that's stopping them: it's the whole rotten religion that's obeyed vehemently in Iraq and that oppresses women's right. Saddam was secular while these new guys will kill those they see as a road block for their Islamic republic.

Yeah Sadaam was pretty sweet.
In all seriousness. This is the Iraqies country. america can only point in the right direction, if they don't want to walk through it that is their problem. Because if we do make them do something that the majority of the Iraqies don't agree with they are not ruling themselves we are ruling the country for them. Beleive me it is not an ideal situation, but quite simply, it is what it is.

[stefanb]

Originally posted by Lynn7
...If they (the women) do not stand firm and continue dressing how they want they will lose it all. ... Freedom is not free- you have to fight for it.and sometimes you have to die for it. New Hampshire's motto is Live Free or Die. It's a good one.

That's very easy advice to give to someone else. Die for your belief! Don't be afraid, it's a nobel thing and what not. If the government where YOU live said "wear a veil, or you may be publicly killed", well, it's nice to think you'd stand up for your desired freedom, come death as it may. That said, it's difficult to blame someone for not wanting to be a martyr for their belief, however justified said belief may be. An individual's desire to survive will typically outweigh their desire to make a political stand. Such is human nature.

-S

[Lynn7]

Well look waht happened in Afghanistan- the women had to wear veiils, could not work and were often forced to starve with their children if their husband died cause they could not work or walk the streets alone. I would be scared to death to stand up for my rights but now is the time to do it while there is reason alive in Iraq- if everyone lets the oppressive extremists take over it will get worse from there.

We have become so soft in the past 50 years,. It is easier to decide just to take the easy road all the time but that is not how the history of the world has worked. History is filled with great men and women who died for their causes and were glad to do it. We often owe a debt of gratitude to them becasue we have reaped the fruit of the seeds they have sown.

[stefanb]

Originally posted by Lynn7
We have become so soft in the past 50 years,. It is easier to decide just to take the easy road all the time but that is not how the history of the world has worked.
While I'm quite certain there's a culture gap between those now and those 50 years ago, "become so soft" is most certainly an over-simplification of said gap.


Originally posted by Lynn7
History is filled with great men and women who died for their causes and were glad to do it.
Well that's a tad over-romantic, isn't it? Or did I mis the post mortem interview(s) of these people where said claim of happiness to be dead was made?


Originally posted by Lynn7
We often owe a debt of gratitude to them becasue we have reaped the fruit of the seeds they have sown.
Indeed.

[The Postmaster General]

Bush owes the men who died for their beliefs a debt of gratitude as it was a good reason to remove Saddam from power.

Of course I'm sure Lynn isn't refering to the terrorists on 9/11 when haralding those who are willing to die for what they believe in. They don't agree with her, so they don't count.

[Lynn7]

The people in the World Trade Center and on the planes did not deserve what happened to them. If those terrorists wanted to start a war and die for a cause then they should have picked a miltary target. They picked innocents to terrorize our people and it worked!!! It's like, oh no! Let's not go after the terrorists. If we withdraw from everything and try to be really nice then maybe they will leave us alone!!!!


Terrorism only works if we let our fear rule us. That is why Bush has been such a great president- when others would have retreated in fear he made the world hesitate to strike us again in case we did some big damage as we did to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Let the world think we are a bit crazy.Let the world wonder what we are going to do. Let us be strong and take care against those who would INTENTIONALLY kill innocnets.

[stefanb]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The people in the World Trade Center and on the planes did not deserve what happened to them. If those terrorists wanted to start a war and die for a cause then they should have picked a miltary target.
Point 1: The Pentagon was as military of a target as it gets.

Point 2: I'm going to play a little devil's advocate here. I don't agree with the overall view of Ward Churchill, but in his controversial essay, "Some People Push Back -- On the Justice of Roosting Chickens (http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html)", he makes an argument that the World Trade Center was a valid target:

They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.


Originally posted by Lynn7
They picked innocents to terrorize our people and it worked!!!
That's really the whole purpose of terrorism, isn't it? Creating the illusion of power where no honest power exists, and more to the point, trying to create the feeling of "you could be next".


Originally posted by Lynn7
It's like, oh no! Let's not go after the terrorists. If we withdraw from everything and try to be really nice then maybe they will leave us alone!!!!
I don't think anyone made that exact argument, per se. At best it's an over-simplification of the anti-war movement, and at worst it's an outright fabrication.


Originally posted by Lynn7
Terrorism only works if we let our fear rule us. That is why Bush has been such a great president- when others would have retreated in fear he made the world hesitate to strike us again
That's sort of a forward looking statement, isn't it? When the next bomb goes off in a London subway, try asking the obvious question, "I thought we were fighting them 'over there' so we don't have to over here." The assumption that there's a hesitation to strike at America again is absurd. The assumption it won't happen again, is more absurd.


Originally posted by Lynn7
in case we did some big damage as we did to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
I'd suggest there's been significant damage to both sides, and both sides are far from having reached the end of their means.

Originally posted by Lynn7
Let us be strong and take care against those who would INTENTIONALLY kill innocnets.

The latest stats from Iraq Body Count dot org (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) have Iraqi civilian casualties at between 26,000 and 29,000. I dislike the fact they include roadside bombs and the like in their counting, as I don't see those as the fault of the coalition army. However, read the database and you'll see several THOUSAND deaths from airstrikes and the like. The distinction that "they mean to kill innocent people, and we just do it by accident" is a total fallacy. You can argue "collateral damage", but at the end of the day, American bombs have killed MORE "innocent civilians" in Iraq than there was Americans killed on 9/11. To argue it was unintentional is a fallacy. They pull the trigger knowing full that the people "near" their target aren't going to be waking up tomorrow. To that end, it's intentional.

-S

[The Postmaster General]

Maybe it wasn't fair that they attacked a global financial center - I don't know.

I doesn't seem fair that we are, as you are saying, showing them were crazy fucks. It's funny, don't get me wrong. There's this show called My Name Is Earl, and in the last episode there was this crazy-eyed feller who used to do crazy shit - everyone was scared of him too, and wouldn't mess with him.

Thos terrorists who fucked up New York and subsequentially caused changes in our culture, lifestyles, and politics - they are crazy mutherfuckers too if you ask me. When I look at those guys, I think, "Wow, those guys were fucking crazy!"

So, I don't know if I want other nations looking at us, going "Oh man (or Allah, or Jah - I don't know) those Americans are crazy, we better not mess with Texas!"

We can do it I all better than anyone else I guess, and the patriot in me says this was a good time to show that.

It's all about respect and stuff, I suppose. I've always gathered that you're not supposed to demand respect, but to earn and maintain it. If my neighbors had parties every night, and it drove me mad, making me go and egg their house - then they came back and threw dog shit on my house - I'd probably think of a better way to get back at them. But if my neighbor came over and was like "What the fuck? You egged my house" and I told them about the noise, and they said "Well why not come over the our party?" - I probably wouldn't party with them, but I'd respect them a lot more and maybe not just sit aroung thinking of a way to show I can be crazier than them.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by stefanb
.
The latest stats from Iraq Body Count dot org (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) have Iraqi civilian casualties at between 26,000 and 29,000. I dislike the fact they include roadside bombs and the like in their counting, as I don't see those as the fault of the coalition army. However, read the database and you'll see several THOUSAND deaths from airstrikes and the like. The distinction that "they mean to kill innocent people, and we just do it by accident" is a total fallacy. You can argue "collateral damage", but at the end of the day, American bombs have killed MORE "innocent civilians" in Iraq than there was Americans killed on 9/11. To argue it was unintentional is a fallacy. They pull the trigger knowing full that the people "near" their target aren't going to be waking up tomorrow. To that end, it's intentional.

-S

The Pentagon might have been a valid target but not the airplanes or the World Trade Center.

It has been the terrorists who have killed all of those Iraqi people, not us. It has been their car bombs and their roadside devices that have taken out so many people. They kill recruits who are lined up to get police jobs and they kill children who are looking to get candy from American citizens. We are the good guys here and yet we are being accused of the killing with seemingly no anger for the real terrorits. It makes no sense to me.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The Pentagon might have been a valid target but not the airplanes or the World Trade Center.

It has been the terrorists who have killed all of those Iraqi people, not us. It has been their car bombs and their roadside devices that have taken out so many people. They kill recruits who are lined up to get police jobs and they kill children who are looking to get candy from American citizens. We are the good guys here and yet we are being accused of the killing with seemingly no anger for the real terrorits. It makes no sense to me.

I assume you didn't read Stefanb's post? He clearly said that USA military has killed more civilians in Iraq than what died in 9/11. He also pointed out that civilians who died in terrorist attacks in Iraq shouldn't count. He also said that there has died more civilians in AIR STRIKE attacks and the like, than what died in 9/11. Terrorists don't do air strike attacks, USA military does.

BTW, World Trade Center is not a purely civilian target. It's a fiscal center, and in any war you try to take out the fiscal centers along with military ones. The terrorists tried to attack USA's most important military, fiscal and political centers during 9/11. This of course doesn't justify their actions, but they were not just picking up random civilian targets.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Tuukka
BTW, World Trade Center is not a purely civilian target. It's a fiscal center, and in any war you try to take out the fiscal centers along with military ones.


Yeah, we closed out banks connected to the terrorist groups. I'm sure if they had that sort of pull, they'd do the same thing to us.



I still want to know if Lynn agrees with biting a rabid dog, just to show it who's boss.

[Joshmo]

Bubbastranglove,

Thanks for the kind apology.. I havent checked this particular thread in a few days and dont want you to think I was blowing you off :)

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Joshmo
Thanks for the kind apology.. I havent checked this particular thread in a few days and dont want you to think I was blowing you off :)


Wait - I said I was wrong, or withdrew something I said?

Ah man, that duhdn't sound right.

:D

[stefanb]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The Pentagon might have been a valid target but not the airplanes or the World Trade Center.

It has been the terrorists who have killed all of those Iraqi people, not us. It has been their car bombs and their roadside devices that have taken out so many people. They kill recruits who are lined up to get police jobs and they kill children who are looking to get candy from American citizens.
Clearly you're not even reading and/or comprehending what I've already said. I'm not going to repeat myself.

I don't wish to open a new debate on America's military/industrial complex, suffice to say that many would argue that the financial core of a country is very much a military target.

Originally posted by Lynn7
We are the good guys here and yet we are being accused of the killing with seemingly no anger for the real terrorits. It makes no sense to me.
Do you know what makes no sense to me? How in any/every armed conflict in the history of the planet earth, both sides can openly claim to be, "the good guys". You'd be hard pressed to name an armed conflict where "the bad guys" won. That's not because the bad guys always lose, but because history books are written by the winners... who incidently claim to be "the good guys". Thus, "the good guys" always win. It's very easy to make the claim of being "the good guys" while clearly dismissing any merit to the counter-arguments of said claim. Consider, if you will, for just a moment that there was a reason for the actions of these "real terrorists". I'll leave you with a quote from author William Blum, taken from his book, "Rogue State: A guide to the World's only Superpower"....

Most terrorists are people deeply concerned by what they see as social, political, or religious injustice and hypocrisy, and the immediate grounds for their terrorism is often retaliation for an action of the United States ...

The shooting down of two Libyan planes in 1981; the bombardment of Beirut in 1983 and 1984; the furnishing of military aid and intelligence to both sides of the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 so as to maximize the damage each side would inflict upon the other; the bombing of Libya in 1986; the bombing and sinking of an Iranian ship in 1987; the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988; the shooting down of two more Libyan planes in 1989; the massive bombing of the Iraqi people in 1991; the continuing bombings and sanctions against Iraq; the bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, the latter destroying a pharmaceutical plant which provided for half the impoverished nation's medicines; the habitual support of Israel despite the devastation and routine torture it inflicts upon the Palestinian people; the condemnation of Arab resistance to this; the continued persecution of Libya, now nearing the end of its second decade; the abduction of wanted men from Muslim countries, such as Malaysia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Albania; the large military and hi-tech presence in Islam's holiest land, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere in the Persian Gulf region; the support of anti-democratic Middle East governments, from the Shah to the Saudis ... These are some of the American actions that can turn an Arab or a Muslim into a fanatic, into a terrorist, into a decrier of "America, the Great Satan".

-S

[<3mekthx]

Shouldn't that be in the 'war on porn' post?

[Lynn7]

Good guys vs.Bad guys

Of course both sides think they are good but I happen to beleive in a standard that decides this: The Bible. I don't beleive people are good cause they THINK they are- they are good according to the types of things they do.

The terrorists deliberately kill innocents- that is bad. People on the street, people on planes, people on buses, on trains. That is bad.

We are helping people.We are giving gazillions of dollars to this country to help get them on their feet and our military has given their lives and limbs to help the Iraqi people get a democracy. That is good.

Why are so many people trying to find ways to support the terrorists- their cause is just as noble as ours? Their means are acceptable and ours are contemptable? I just don't' get it and never will.

If we are killing so many Iraq people why do the leaders beg us to stay? If we leave too soon there will be millons slaughtered and they know it.

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Why are so many people trying to find ways to support the terrorists- their cause is just as noble as ours? Their means are acceptable and ours are contemptable? I just don't' get it and never will.


That's not the case, at least with my comments.

My sentiment is that we might have been suckered into playing a game by the terrorists -- A game that we are too good to be playing. It's like we are Michael Jordan and we got challenged to a basketball game by some street hoods. We're the more talented performer, no doubt -- but they don't care about that as much as they care about being able to brag that they got Jordan to resort to getting pushed around on the court, and maybe walking away with a twisted ankle, and consequently can't play next season - then not only are we hurt, but so is our team because they've lost a valuable player --- All because he wanted to prove something.

To say that ackowledging the intent behind a terrorists' act is "supporting" them - that borders on propoganda of the Michael Moore variety.

[stefanb]

Bubba... analogies are like babies... Some are good and some are bad, but for the most part they all suck. Including this analogy that I'm writing right now. Michael Jordan? wtf?


Originally posted by Lynn7
Good guys vs.Bad guys

Of course both sides think they are good but I happen to beleive in a standard that decides this: The Bible. I don't beleive people are good cause they THINK they are- they are good according to the types of things they do.
Yes, if Christ were alive, he'd certainly be supportive about the invasion and occupation of Iraq, so far resulting in 30,000+ dead and counting. In fact, some considered Christ to be one of the leading military philosophers of his time. No, wait a sec... do I have the right guy?


Originally posted by Lynn7
The terrorists deliberately kill innocents- that is bad. People on the street, people on planes, people on buses, on trains. That is bad.
And when America does it, it's "collateral damage", and "an accident"... regardless of the fact that "collateral damage" and "accidents" far far far outweigh the number of deaths from terrorism in America. pot/kettle/black.

Originally posted by Lynn7
We are helping people.We are giving gazillions of dollars to this country to help get them on their feet and our military has given their lives and limbs to help the Iraqi people get a democracy. That is good.
First of all, if America is investing "gazillions" of dollars, it's likely because they're hoping to attain a political influence, a hegemony if you will, in a region that has a wealth of natural resources which America has a great dependence on. Say it with me... O I L. If I'm wrong, then explain why so little is done about atrocities, dictators, evil regimes, etc, etc in sub-Saharan Africa, and other parts of the world lacking said resource.

Originally posted by Lynn7
Why are so many people trying to find ways to support the terrorists- their cause is just as noble as ours? Their means are acceptable and ours are contemptable? I just don't' get it and never will.
Support the terrorists? When exactly did I become a terrorist supporter? I'd suggest you only don't get things that I never even said in the first place. Personally, I also don't get people who would support the terrorists. Simply stated, I choose to try and see myself through my enemies eyes... Not through the eyes I choose to give him.

Originally posted by Lynn7
If we are killing so many Iraq people why do the leaders beg us to stay? If we leave too soon there will be millons slaughtered and they know it.
That's a generalization. The leaders beg you to stay because they're predominantly Shi'ite officials who obtained power due to the toppling of Saddam's regime. That said, there are almost certainly Shi'ite Muslims who want American forces gone. There's a large Sunni presence who for the most part wants America out. That said, there are most certainly some Sunnis who think a continued American presence is necessary. There are the Kurds who for the most part share a lot of views with the Shi'ites, and vice versa. Long story short, it's a divided country and to say that the Iraqis "beg us to stay" is a gross over-simplification. Some do, some don't. I guess - in this debate - we're examining the views of those who don't, and why they don't.

-S

******************************************

60 Minutes (May 12th, 1996) :
Lesley Stahl, speaking on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

My question:
- How many dead AMERICAN children would it take for the price to no longer be "worth it"?

Answer:
- I'm guessing somewhere short of a half million.

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by Lynn7
Why are so many people trying to find ways to support the terrorists- their cause is just as noble as ours? Their means are acceptable and ours are contemptable? I just don't' get it and never will.

That always seems to be the defacto answer from you right wingers. If you don't support Bush or his illicit war you support the terrorists and hate the USA. What I don't support is illicit and immoral wars started by corporate warmonger dickheads that do more to serve the interests of oil barons and defense contractors than the American public.

Did you know that Halliburton's stock has risen almost tenfold since the start of thisn campaign? Bush and his cronies are making out like bandits at America's expense.

[stefanb]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Did you know that Halliburton's stock has risen almost tenfold since the start of thisn campaign? Bush and his cronies are making out like bandits at America's expense.

Tenfold? Wow, that's an impressive..... lie.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y

The invasion of Iraq began March 20th, 2003. Halliburton stock was a hair over $20/share. It's now (Oct 3rd, 2005) at $68ish. Not quite 3½-fold... Rather short of "Tenfold". Don't lie and invent figures. It helps nothing.

-S

[Mr-Blonde]

Originally posted by stefanb
Tenfold? Wow, that's an impressive..... lie.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=HAL&t=5y

The invasion of Iraq began March 20th, 2003. Halliburton stock was a hair over $20/share. It's now (Oct 3rd, 2005) at $68ish. Not quite 3½-fold... Rather short of "Tenfold". Don't lie and invent figures. It helps nothing.

-S

Ok maybe my figures were incorrect but that doesn't change the fact that they are getting rich off this war.

[stefanb]

Originally posted by Mr-Blonde
Ok maybe my figures were incorrect but that doesn't change the fact that they are getting rich off this war.
Simply stated, "they" is everyone and anyone who owns shares of Halliburton. For the most part, that's John Q. Average American Investor. In the Bush administration, I believe Dick Cheney is the only one with a direct financial interest of any sort in Halliburton. I stand to be corrected, but I don't think I will be.

-S

[Criminal Rock]

Originally posted by stefanb
The latest stats from Iraq Body Count dot org (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) have Iraqi civilian casualties at between 26,000 and 29,000. I dislike the fact they include roadside bombs and the like in their counting, as I don't see those as the fault of the coalition army. However, read the database and you'll see several THOUSAND deaths from airstrikes and the like. The distinction that "they mean to kill innocent people, and we just do it by accident" is a total fallacy. You can argue "collateral damage", but at the end of the day, American bombs have killed MORE "innocent civilians" in Iraq than there was Americans killed on 9/11. To argue it was unintentional is a fallacy. They pull the trigger knowing full that the people "near" their target aren't going to be waking up tomorrow. To that end, it's intentional.

i'm just wondering, if they didn't count the roadside bombs and the like... what would the toll be at? around... 10,000 deaths maybe? correct me if I'm wrong... but most of the civilian casualties, directly affected by US coalition, occurred within the invasion period which I guess was the first 6 to 7 months (right?), how many civilians have the US forces killed in the last year? How many Iraqi civilians died from anti-American insurgence in the last year?

[stefanb]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
i'm just wondering, if they didn't count the roadside bombs and the like... what would the toll be at? around... 10,000 deaths maybe?
If you'd like to claim that insurgent-caused civilian deaths outnumber coalition-army-caused civilian deaths by a factor of 2-to-1, then back it up with something other than the fact that you can pull numbers out of thin air. That's less a than impressive skill.

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
correct me if I'm wrong... but most of the civilian casualties, directly affected by US coalition, occurred within the invasion period which I guess was the first 6 to 7 months (right?), how many civilians have the US forces killed in the last year? How many Iraqi civilians died from anti-American insurgence in the last year?

I'd say there were more civilians killed by US forces in the last year than the number of Americans that died in the World Trade Center in the last year. Is there an intelligent reason to limit this debate to what's happened in just the last year? You can if you want to. I'm not going to.

-S

[Criminal Rock]

Originally posted by stefanb
Simply stated, "they" is everyone and anyone who owns shares of Halliburton. For the most part, that's John Q. Average American Investor. In the Bush administration, I believe Dick Cheney is the only one with a direct financial interest of any sort in Halliburton. I stand to be corrected, but I don't think I will be.

Cheney had already earned the salary that they paid him from 2000 till now, the second he was a candidate for the VP, he obtained an insurance policy to guarantee that the delayed salary would pay him whether or not Halliburton fell under. The stocks everyone’s talking about, he placed em’ into a charitable trust, and no longer has any control over them. I’d say that’s a good thing.

[stefanb]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Cheney had already earned the salary that they paid him from 2000 till now, the second he was a candidate for the VP, he obtained an insurance policy to guarantee that the delayed salary would pay him whether or not Halliburton fell under. The stocks everyone’s talking about, he placed em’ into a charitable trust, and no longer has any control over them. I’d say that’s a good thing.

All I stated was that Cheney had "direct financial interest" in Halliburton. I am yet to be corrected on that statement.

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=23898

-S

[stefanb]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Oh, i wasn’t trying to put you in a situation to justify anything, and I wasn't trying to "limit the argument" either... i was merely asking the question because I wasn't sure what the answer actually was.
Don't know, and care even less.

-S

[Criminal Rock]

Originally posted by stefanb
I say many more than the number that died in the World Trade Center in the last year. Is there an intelligent reason to limit this debate to what's happened in just the last year? You can if you want to. I'm not going to.

-S

Oh, i wasn’t trying to put you in a situation to justify anything, and I wasn't trying to "limit the argument" either... i was merely asking the question because I wasn't sure what the answer actually was.

[Criminal Rock]

Originally posted by stefanb
If you'd like to claim that insurgent-caused civilian deaths outnumber coalition-army-caused civilian deaths by a factor of 2-to-1, then back it up with something other than the fact that you can pull numbers out of thin air. That's less a than impressive skill.

-S

It says directly on that website that 36% of civilian deaths were caused by US lead and coalition forces... i did the math after reading that statement.

[stefanb]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
It says directly on that website that 36% of civilian deaths were caused by US lead and coalition forces... i did the math after reading that statement.

Interesting. And, yes, it would appear you are at least close enough to correct that I won't say you're wrong. The quote from this page:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/

...says this:
This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase prior to May 1st 2003. In the current occupation phase the database includes all deaths which the Occupying Authority has a binding responsibility to prevent under the Geneva Conventions and Hague Regulations. This includes civilian deaths resulting from the breakdown in law and order, and deaths due to inadequate health care or sanitation.

...and doing a search of the site, I found this press release:
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php

....which said:
* US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
* Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
* Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
* Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period.

37% + 9% + 36% = 82%, so we still have 18% unaccounted for.

In any regard, the only claim I made was that Iraqi civilian deaths caused by coalition forces far outweighed the number of American deaths on 9/11. No matter how we turn the numbers from this website, I haven't made any claim that can realistically be proven false. That's all that honestly matters to me here.

-S

[The Postmaster General]

America got suckered into a war by people who don't play under the same rules as we do. Whether or not we are "right" doesn't matter, because we are still going to walk out of it scathed. It may be this level of being scathed that could hurt us in the eyes of all of the people who do play by the rules.

Bush keeps saying "Terr'ists don't decide how we fight a war." but it seems to me that the terrorists have already decided that we would go to war, and since they aren't playing under the same rules we are -- there is going to be a lot more running in circles that there would have been if we'd approached it differently.



[QUOTE]Originally posted by stefanb
Bubba... analogies are like babies... Some are good and some are bad, but for the most part they all suck. Including this analogy that I'm writing right now. Michael Jordan? wtf?

I don't buy that. Maybe it's true on the internet, but not for the most part.

One I will buy, based on what you've just shown me -- Analogies can be like mirrors in bird cages.

Anyway - I changed my analogy to be straight forward - as to not cause anyone to get confused.

[Lynn7]

Originally posted by stefanb


Yes, if Christ were alive, he'd certainly be supportive about the invasion and occupation of Iraq, so far resulting in 30,000+ dead and counting. In fact, some considered Christ to be one of the leading military philosophers of his time. No, wait a sec... do I have the right guy?


The bible is filled with stories of where God called his people to war against evil nations or to go to help the oppressed nations under evil rulers. And the end of the bible in Revelation is all about war and destruction. The terrorists are evil people out to kill ALL who stand against them -even their own people. Maybe people don't think they are "supporting" the terrorists but it comes pretty close when people call George W a "murderer"- recently words have begun to lose their actual meaning in the name of politics.

[stefanb]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
One I will buy, based on what you've just shown me -- Analogies can be like mirrors in bird cages.

Oh I get it... while they attempt to be reflective, they're more often covered in shit.

Did I get that right? :p

-S

[Jon Lyrik]

Terrorists have nothing to do with Iraq--well, pre-invasion.

[stefanb]

Originally posted by Lynn7
The bible is filled with stories of where God called his people to war against evil nations or to go to help the oppressed nations under evil rulers. And the end of the bible in Revelation is all about war and destruction. The terrorists are evil people out to kill ALL who stand against them -even their own people. Maybe people don't think they are "supporting" the terrorists but it comes pretty close when people call George W a "murderer"- recently words have begun to lose their actual meaning in the name of politics.

Yea, and the belt buckle of every German soldier in WWII was inscribed with the words, Gott ist mit uns, meaning God is with us. I would imagine that the God who said, "thou shalt not kill", must get pretty tired of having his name invoked by both sides of every armed conflict in the history of the human beings practicing religion.

I'm an agnostic, and I don't believe in the bible, but it just doesn't suprise me that it's authors were invoking God's support during their own armed conflicts. Find me the group of humans who didn't claim God was on their side, then you'll have shown me something I haven't seen before.

-S

[stefanb]

Originally posted by Jon Lyrik
Terrorists have nothing to do with Iraq--well, pre-invasion.

That's entirely incorrect. There's been no link proven to 9/11, and limited links to Al Qeada, but it's a documented fact that Saddam was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000. This was nothing short of state-sponsored terrorism.

Granted, it's nothing the United States hasn't done.

-S

[Jon Lyrik]

Originally posted by stefanb
That's entirely incorrect. There's been no link proven to 9/11, and limited links to Al Qeada

That's what I meant.

[The Postmaster General]

I think there probably were some links to the Trade Center collapse and Iraq, and that Saddam should have been tossed.

However, I think all of the business of anthrax and WMDs scared the fuck out of everyone and without much cause. If Bush had said, "Hey lets start some shit!" people probably would have all been like "America, Fuck Yeah!" all the same. Then we wouldn't have been lied to and it would have been like it was.

All of this bullshit about Iraqi freedoms and so forth - get the fuck outta here. We saw them all running around with TV's and we were told, "Hey look, they are free!" then in NO, they show people running around with TVs and it's like "Ah, that shit ain't right." -- They should have been like, "Hey look, they are getting shit for free!"

Iraqi women have the shit end of the deal because they've been demoted in their culture to only having their children and men to care for and -- oh shit, sorry - they are being recruited by the - oh, we'll just call them the Rebel Alliance since this is a movie board.

That's all just a worst case scenario and probably isn't the case in most or not all of the situations, but that's just one scenario that is likely to be the case. Or something like that. There's so much more stuff to look at in situations like this.

[stefanb]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I think there probably were some links to the Trade Center collapse and Iraq, and that Saddam should have been tossed.

Do NOT use 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq. Even George is smart enough to call bullshit on that nonsense (http://www.banda.ca/x/noevidence.htm).

If you were looking for ways to justify the invasion of Iraq, consider that there are 4 conditions under which UN members can tell a member country that it's sovereignty is over:
1. Aggression against neighboring states.
2. State-sponsored terrorism
3. Violation of non-proliferation treaties.
4. Genocide

Iraq -- under Saddam -- was in violation of all four, on multiple occasions. That said, there is NO proven link to 9/11, so please don't invent one just because you'd like there to be one.

-S

[Criminal Rock]

Genocide should be number one on that list.

[stefanb]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
Genocide should be number one on that list.
Oh, why, did you want to steer this debate in the direction of US-sponsored genocide (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/genocide_Odon.html)?

How about genocide at the hands of Governments put in power by the US (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Guatemala_KH.html)?

-S

[Criminal Rock]

I didn't "steer" anything towards “US sponsored genocides”… what you posted did, and it makes absolutely no connection to Saddams’ atrocities, being that it is what we were talking about before your rant.

[stefanb]

Originally posted by Tai Mai Jew
I didn't "steer" anything towards “US sponsored genocides”… what you posted did, and it makes absolutely no connection to Saddams’ atrocities, being that it is what we were talking about before your rant.

I didn't rant... I was just curious why Genocide was so important to you that it needs to be moved to first on the list. I figured, if it's that important of a topic, let's really have a look at it from all possible angles.

-S

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by stefanb
Do NOT use 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq. Even George is smart enough to call bullshit on that nonsense (http://www.banda.ca/x/noevidence.htm).

If you were looking for ways to justify the invasion of Iraq, consider that there are 4 conditions under which UN members can tell a member country that it's sovereignty is over:
1. Aggression against neighboring states.
2. State-sponsored terrorism
3. Violation of non-proliferation treaties.
4. Genocide

Iraq -- under Saddam -- was in violation of all four, on multiple occasions. That said, there is NO proven link to 9/11, so please don't invent one just because you'd like there to be one.

-S



I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to point out there's no justification in being lied to - ESPECIALLY in this case.

My point is that Bush didn't need to make up reasons. I'm not justifying this war -- I'm pretty sure I've made it abundantly clear in my collective threads that I'm against being Iraq for a majority of reasons --- Even still, I think there was enough "outrage" that Bush wouldn't of had to of had the WMDs excuse. No one would have cared at that point. Bush could have said "Let's go fuck some shit up" and I think everyone still would have been cool with it. The LAST thing they needed to do was trump up some charges -- Saddam had enough shit on his hand, as you've pointed out, and there is no reason to not believe there was some 9/11 link ---- Not that there was or wasn't, but I don't think anyone would have given it a second thought if it'd gone down that way. The way it went down seems kind of underhanded. All of this other stuff is very much after-the-fact.

The only 9/11/Iraq connection I see is in the USA feeling the need to flex, so to say.

That being said, I think we've long ago gotten our maximum benefits from being in Iraq. We need to get our eyes back on the prize -- where it should have been for these last years.

[stefanb]

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm trying to point out there's no justification in being lied to - ESPECIALLY in this case.

Well, if Iraq HAD been behind 9/11, then I think it would have qualified as an act of war and the resulting invasion of said country would be quite valid. Now, did I miss something, or did you not say, "I think there probably were some links to the Trade Center collapse and Iraq, and that Saddam should have been tossed."

It doesn't honestly matter, either way.

-S

[The Postmaster General]

Originally posted by stefanb
Now, did I miss something, or did you not say, "I think there probably were some links to the Trade Center collapse and Iraq, and that Saddam should have been tossed."



Probably, I don't know. It seems people have been able to make all sorts of connections. There's probably links to Bush, the Bank of America, Spy Kids -- You know, probably links. I'm not commited to any ideas of what happened there. All I'm saying is that it's not totally absurd to suggest, and aside from this big round-about, I or many others wouldn't even bothered to double think whether or not there was an actual solid link. I think if Bush was describing how I was speaking, he would have said it was with a 9/12/2001 mentality -- What you are talking about, and what I'm also aware is the 9/12/2005 mentality. Like I said, my point was that he wouldn't have had to do much in way of selling the war onto us so it kind of sucked that it was made into a "Oh my God, we are all going to die!" sort of thing.

I'm pretty firm about thinking Saddam should have been tossed, but I'm not sure about the timing and circumstances it happened under.