Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
The war on Iraq has made moral cowards of us all
Tuesday, November 2, 2004 9:54 AM
GHOULMAN
Tuesday, November 2, 2004 10:22 AM
JAYNEZTOWN
Tuesday, November 2, 2004 3:26 PM
DARKJESTER
Tuesday, November 2, 2004 5:26 PM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Quote:These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties.
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 6:57 AM
LISSA
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:29 AM
HERO
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Oh, but killing 100,000 people is OK because we're the good guys.
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:33 AM
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:51 AM
PLACIDITY
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Oh, but killing 100,000 people is OK because we're the good guys. Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up. We invaded Iraq, routed their Army, and removed Saddam Hussein from power. Did you really expect we could do this without hurting anyone? I suppose we could have issued our soldiers flowers and candy and seduced our way into Baghdad. Or we could have surrendered our way to victory like a certain European country seems to prefer. Maybe 100,000 was to many. But with 1000 dead Americans in the balence, I'd say it wasn't enough. Sure thats a cruel statement, but with estimates putting insurgents at 10-20,000, I'd say we came in about 10-20,000 short. And just for the record. The killing is not ok because we are the good guys. Its because we are the good guys that the killing is not ok. (wow, that damn right poetical). H
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:00 AM
JASONZZZ
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:04 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Oh, but killing 100,000 people is OK because we're the good guys. Quote:These mainly media-based reports put the number of Iraqi civilian deaths at about 15,000 - although the basis for such an endorsement is unclear, since neither the US nor the UK admits to collecting data on Iraqi civilian casualties. Actually, the CPA stopped the Iraqi interim government from tracking civilians deaths.
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:09 AM
ZARK1976
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:10 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Did you read the article? The vast majority of dead are women and children, and they were bombed (deliberately targeted using "smart bomb" technology). If you're willing to accept "collateral damage" of this magnitude, what makes you better than a terrorist? (Other than the fact that we're the "good guys".)
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:13 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up.
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:17 AM
Quote:Originally posted by zark1976: I've been wondering, what makes the US the good guys? OK, so maybe we had the moral high ground with Afghanistan, returning some personal freedoms and taking down Saddam Hussein who was almost as heinous as Stalin was. But who appointed us the crusaders. Why are we going into so many other countries and telling them how to live? Maybe I missed the meeting where everyone agreed that we should be the ones who are right. How is it that our way of life is the most valid on this planet? When did we stop the killings in our own streets, the illegal drug use, the child endangerment, the homeless, the hungry, the pollution, drinking and driving, child pornography, social inequality, and prejudice? When did we become the warm moral center the rest of the world should huddle around? Just because we have 2 TVs in every household and a car in every garage, we're right? Just because we're more concerned that no child gets left behind than that our children are brought up to know something. Just because we make people coming into this country take a test to prove their worthiness to be citizens, but let any idiot born here have the capacity to vote, whether they know anything of the history of the politics in this country or not. How can we determine what is right when we have so many voices disagreeing about it? I love my family, I love my friends, I love my community, I like the opportunities that I have, but I think that our attitude towards the rest of the world is what causes so many people hate the U.S. "Could be he's harboring some resentment at us for putting his man through our engine."
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:28 AM
Quote:Originally posted by lissa: Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up. um, can i just say, NO DUH. i'm aware that we're at war (wait, wasn't that supposed to be over a while ago?), but that doesn't make it ok that all of these people, not to mention the soldiers, reporters, etc., are dead. i'm sad for these people. unlike you, i can't just say "oh, but that's what war is, so it's all ok." ~lissa, spwhore
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 8:46 AM
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 9:11 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: I'm saying that if you have to kill that many civilians in order to win, maybe you're on the wrong track. Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? We had to destroy villages in order to save them,.
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 10:00 AM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 10:28 AM
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 11:08 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Jasonzzz: to win what? to win freedom for the other 24Million people who live there? No, no amount of human lives is acceptable, but if one more child (any child in the world, not just Iraqi - but especially so nevertheless) can grow up in this world knowing that one more tyrant is disposed so that he/she can no longer thoughtly torture or maim someone else.
Quote: Then we should always do what is right - and war & killing people & destroying property should be the last resort.
Quote:Vietnam, while you kosherly watched it on TV from the comfort of your living room couch with your detached sense of reality and vague academic understanding. I lived it.
Quote: But why bring that up now,
Quote: the circumstances and motivation are completely different? The Vietnamese people were clearly screwed by the French government twice within the last century and their colonistic aims.
Quote: Vietnamese people wanted a break and they would have gone to anyone to get a better deal and they did.
Quote: I don't agree with what happened there since the people there should have decided, but there at least 6 different Viet communist parties on the ground all being ran by the same people under different guises. But what did they really want? All vieing for the same thing. Freedom.
Quote:No such thing is going on in Iraq.
Quote: Don't you dare use Vietnam as your own personal byline and twist it as a side issue merely for your own gain.
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: I'm saying that if you have to kill that many civilians in order to win, maybe you're on the wrong track. Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? We had to destroy villages in order to save them.
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 11:21 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: There are no insurgents... only Iraqi citizens. They are defending thier country from an invading Nation that is forcing it's ideology onto the people. People who desire an Islamic-state. Quote:Originally posted by lissa: Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up. um, can i just say, NO DUH. i'm aware that we're at war (wait, wasn't that supposed to be over a while ago?), but that doesn't make it ok that all of these people, not to mention the soldiers, reporters, etc., are dead. i'm sad for these people. unlike you, i can't just say "oh, but that's what war is, so it's all ok." ~lissa, spwhore Get used to these statements Lissa, it's the sort of bullplop from a neofascist who thinks it's possible to justify 100000 dead. He is about ignoring facts and rationalizing death, suffering, and pain. Facts like 100000 can only indicate the crime that is the American invasion of Iraq... oh I'm sorry, the invasion that's "Mission Accomplished" and not a war... oh but it's a War on Terror now... shit. Saddam would be so proud, America is well on it's way to equaling Saddams numbers during the Iran/Iraq War. Of course, the USA helped then too. And it's a little different as the 100000 dead are mostly civilians not soldiers... not that this matters to neofascists. Neofascists are what's wrong with America - ignorance, lies, and antipathy. The election was illegally stolen by the neofascists. Because they couldn't win the election on the merits of thier performance they have to stage a Wag the Dog event, presented with payola by the Networks, CNN, and FOX (with the glee of a Nazi propogandist), so they can continue to steal Oil and murder the citizens of Iraq without fear of prosecution. Fascism. It's a trend. BTW, I called Bush the "winner" a month ago. Never doubt the Ghoulman!
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 11:29 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: There are no insurgents... only Iraqi citizens. They are defending thier country from an invading Nation that is forcing it's ideology onto the people. People who desire an Islamic-state. Quote:Originally posted by lissa: Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Don't wanna make LISSA cry, but war tends to involve killing and blowing things up. um, can i just say, NO DUH. i'm aware that we're at war (wait, wasn't that supposed to be over a while ago?), but that doesn't make it ok that all of these people, not to mention the soldiers, reporters, etc., are dead. i'm sad for these people. unlike you, i can't just say "oh, but that's what war is, so it's all ok." ~lissa, spwhore Get used to these statements Lissa, it's the sort of bullplop from a neofascist who thinks it's possible to justify 100000 dead. He is about ignoring facts and rationalizing death, suffering, and pain. Facts like 100000 can only indicate the crime that is the American invasion of Iraq... oh I'm sorry, the invasion that's "Mission Accomplished" and not a war... oh but it's a War on Terror now... shit. Saddam would be so proud, America is well on it's way to equaling Saddams numbers during the Iran/Iraq War. Of course, the USA helped then too. And it's a little different as the 100000 dead are mostly civilians not soldiers... not that this matters to neofascists.
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Neofascists are what's wrong with America - ignorance, lies, and antipathy. The election was illegally stolen by the neofascists. Because they couldn't win the election on the merits of thier performance they have to stage a Wag the Dog event, presented with payola by the Networks, CNN, and FOX (with the glee of a Nazi propogandist), so they can continue to steal Oil and murder the citizens of Iraq without fear of prosecution. Fascism. It's a trend. BTW, I called Bush the "winner" a month ago. Never doubt the Ghoulman!
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 11:34 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Quote:Originally posted by Jasonzzz: to win what? to win freedom for the other 24Million people who live there? No, no amount of human lives is acceptable, but if one more child (any child in the world, not just Iraqi - but especially so nevertheless) can grow up in this world knowing that one more tyrant is disposed so that he/she can no longer thoughtly torture or maim someone else. You're such a hero. Wow, gee we are all so impressed with your commitment to the disposing of tyrants. Considering Saddam Hussein was a tyrant propped up by the Bush Junta all through the 80s for the Iran/Iraq War (where do you think Saddam got the Sarin and Antrax gas?), any American claim to the disposing of tyrants can't be taken as anything but utter bullshit. Besides, Saddam was left in Bagdadh after the Gulf War by the first Bush to "stabalize the region", remember?
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Quote: Then we should always do what is right - and war & killing people & destroying property should be the last resort. Destroying property in a wild attack was the first thing America did - Operation Rolling Thunder drove right into Bagdadh, guns a blazing! The article above talks about this. Go read it!
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Quote:Vietnam, while you kosherly watched it on TV from the comfort of your living room couch with your detached sense of reality and vague academic understanding. I lived it. You What? You were alive when the Vietnam Conflict was on? Suuuuuuure.
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Quote: But why bring that up now, Then why the frell did ya?
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Quote: the circumstances and motivation are completely different? The Vietnamese people were clearly screwed by the French government twice within the last century and their colonistic aims. ??? Why did you even mention this?
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Quote: Vietnamese people wanted a break and they would have gone to anyone to get a better deal and they did. The Vietnamese, who you state you know as one of your own, wanted to be free of an Empire that controled thier lives. Iraqies feel the same thing.
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Quote: I don't agree with what happened there since the people there should have decided, but there at least 6 different Viet communist parties on the ground all being ran by the same people under different guises. But what did they really want? All vieing for the same thing. Freedom. Oh. Well, you finally got to the point at least.
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Quote:No such thing is going on in Iraq. The very same thing is going on in Iraq. The Empire wants Democratic Rule but the people want an Islamic State. It's just like Vietnam - they wanted a Communist State but the Empire wanted to impose Democratic Rule. It's always that Democracy bullplop. Trust me, it's a dodge to fool the people. America never gave democracy to any nation or people and in fact has a very long record of setting up murdering tyrants across the globe while murdering anyone who interfers with American Business Interests (that's the so called "Democracy" part). Same shit, different pile. The USA isn't doing anything original or new in Iraq... we have seen this crap from America before. In Vietnam for example.
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Quote: Don't you dare use Vietnam as your own personal byline and twist it as a side issue merely for your own gain. We gain something? The comparisons between the Iraq Occupation and the Vietnam Conflict are valid. Many journalists have done so already, and as well the circumstances and facts around both conflicts have lots of paralells.
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: I'm saying that if you have to kill that many civilians in order to win, maybe you're on the wrong track. Are you old enough to remember Vietnam? We had to destroy villages in order to save them. Your the best SignyM. Yes, everyday American soldiers went out on what were called "Search and Destroy". Something Kerry actually took part in just as all soldiers did. And that's the tragedy for the soldier - US soldiers are being ordered to murder women and children. It's not like they have a choice. Of course, if you point these facts out to the world the neofascists will just accuse you of "not supporting the troops". In Vietnam US soldiers murdered civilians on a daily basis. They weren't mad killers but after the "conditioning" and the fear they fell into a dark world of death, blood, and flies. You don't want to know. Worse, they sometimes came to realize that the enemy wasn't the "Commie Pinko" monsters thier Commanders told them the VC were - the Vietnam Soldier was a Freedom Fighter. The realization that your government dropped you into a conflict where you are the oppressor was supposed to be a lesson America only had to learn once. Now there is Iraq. Shame on America. Worse, those soldiers who voted against the Iraq Occupation (and thus Bush) had thier votes "cancelled". Sad but true. Fascism - it has it's cheerleaders.
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 12:12 PM
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 12:18 PM
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 2:20 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Geezer- Did you read the methodology of the Lancet article? Now, if anyone knows how to estimate population mortality rates, it's gotta be doctors. Both sites claim to be looking at the same things deaths due to military action, violence and crime, lack of sanitation and so forth during the occupation- but iraqbodycount uses media reports and the Lancet medical journal used a large survey. Aside from the fact that most media reports come directly from US military statements (General Blotz reported that ex number of insurgents were killed during a bombing raid on Zee City) and is filtered just a tad, the media in general seriously under-reports deaths in underdeveloped countries because poor people seldom take their sick or wounded (or dead) to hospital or morgue. For example, the full scope of the accident at Bhopal was not reflected by the number of people at hospital or in morgue, but by the number of coffins that were ordered... then factor in that many poor women or children were buried without coffins at all. (There was a serious under-representation of child-sized coffins in the surge of orders.) The difference between the reports (hospital admissions/ reported deaths versus 'excess' coffin orders) was a factor of 20, if I remember correctly. All in all, I think I'd go with the Lancet estimate, based on their expertise in this sort of thing.
Quote:“The invasion of Iraq, the displacement of a cruel dictator, and the attempt to impose a liberal democracy by force have, by themselves, been insufficient to bring peace and security to the civilian population. Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths, not fewer,” writes Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet in a commentary accompanying the paper.
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 2:34 PM
Quote:Many of the Iraqis reportedly killed by US forces could have been combatants. 28 of 61 killings (46%) attributed to US forces involved men age 15–60 years, 28 (46%) were children younger than 15 years, four (7%) were women, and one was an elderly man. It is not clear if the greater number of male deaths was attributable to legitimate targeting of combatants who may have been disproportionately male, or if this was because men are more often in public and more likely to be exposed to danger. For example, seven of 12 (58%) vehicle accident related fatalities involved men between 15 and 60 years.Quote: "Keep the Shiny side up"
Quote: "Keep the Shiny side up"
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 3:52 PM
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 4:11 PM
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:22 PM
Wednesday, November 3, 2004 7:40 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: I looked at the full Lancet article. Despite some objections, the statistics appear to be quite robust. For example, in the reporting period before the invasion, one person died of violence in about 7400 people, while in a (slightly longer) reporting period, 21 people died of violence in about 7800 people. This EXCLUDES Falujah, where an additional 51 people died. (Falujah was excluded because it is a statistical anomaly on shouldn't be projected onto Iraq as a whole). Now, I don't care how you cut those stats... pre-invasion violence stats may have been slightly under-reported, but you could quadruple reported pre-invasion violence deaths and still come up with a 500% increase in deaths due to violence since the invasion.
Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:14 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: But let's assume that you are correct in generlizing that every single male between the ages of 15-60 was an insurgent. What does that say about our popular support in Iraq??
Thursday, November 4, 2004 3:54 AM
FIREFLOOZYSUZIE
Thursday, November 4, 2004 4:03 AM
Quote:Originally posted by firefloozysuzie: (oh, wait - are we counting maiming and severe bodily damage? We should be!)
Thursday, November 4, 2004 6:31 AM
Quote:Originally posted by firefloozysuzie: Oh oh BABY -- all this methodology talk! Sexy stuff ;-) I'm so proud of our brainiac browncoats :)
Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:48 AM
Quote: Lancet editor Richard Horton said: "Democratic imperialism has led to more deaths, not fewer. This political and military failure continues to cause scores of casualties among non-combatants."
Thursday, November 4, 2004 7:53 AM
DAIKATH
Thursday, November 4, 2004 8:51 AM
Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:21 AM
Thursday, November 4, 2004 9:30 AM
Monday, November 15, 2004 9:42 AM
Monday, November 15, 2004 10:09 AM
Monday, November 15, 2004 10:19 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Just to interject... But this report is completely above board and cannot be refuted. It has not been refuted yet. Certainly it cannot be refuted by the goofs in this forum. Even today someone told me I was a liar because I mentioned 100000 dead Iraq women and children.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:28 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: Just to interject... But this report is completely above board and cannot be refuted. It has not been refuted yet. Certainly it cannot be refuted by the goofs in this forum. Even today someone told me I was a liar because I mentioned 100000 dead Iraq women and children. I asked you to provide cites from the Lancet article to support your '100,000 women and children killed by US bombing' claim. Well?
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 7:44 AM
Quote:(despite the Lancet website's front-page headline "100,000 excess civilian deaths after Iraq invasion", the authors clearly state that "many" of the dead in their sample may have been combatants [P.7]).
Tuesday, November 23, 2004 8:10 AM
MIKECHANCE
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 5:22 AM
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 3:50 PM
RUE
I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!
Wednesday, November 24, 2004 4:52 PM
HKCAVALIER
Quote:Originally posted by Ghoulman: This BBS is the most disgusting example of ignorant trolls I've ever seen in all my 10 years online. To tell you the truth, I often point this site out to friends who are amazed at the ignorance and childishness. It's almost as bad as CrossFire on CNN! It's a terrific example of American discourse.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004 7:19 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL